Dismissed

M/S National Insurance Company Limited v. Suhail Ahmad and 5 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2021FAFO/104/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against a compensation award. The court held that despite discrepancies in the employment story, the lack of effective cross-examination and evidence by the appellant did not justify interfering with the lower court's finding that the death arose out of employment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the insurance company was dismissed.

M/S National Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 104 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- M/S National Insurance Company Limited Respondent :- Suhail Ahmad And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Satya Deo Ojha

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for appellant and Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel for respondent.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of the award dated 13.11.2020 passed by learned Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh passed in Compensation Case No. W.C.A. 15 of 2020, on the ground that factum of employment is doubtful. It is also submitted that employer of the deceased was admittedly in Mumbai, on the date of the so called accident on 17.01.2020. After returning from Mumbai, a G.D. entry was made on 27.01.2020 to the effect that deceased was an employee of Sashikant Yadav. Deceased had taken the truck bearing registration no. UP50 BT 9543 and since truck developed some snag, therefore, deceased was travelling on a motorcycle to get the mechanic. On return, this accident took place, when motorcycle had slipped due to dirt and moisture on the road, as a result, Abu Sahma sustained grievous injury, as a result of which, he died.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that later on with a view to cause undue benefit to the claimants, this story of employment and deceased travelling to fetch a mechanic has been cooked up, which is contrary to the G.D. entry dated 25.02.2020. It is submitted that the Sub-Inspector has categorically noted that on 27.01.2020 at about 19:07 hours, Shashikant Yadav s/o Uma @ Dheba Yadav of Belwarpar, Police Station-Gambhirpur, District-Azamgarh lodged a bychance report, which was found to be correct. Thereafter, on the intimation given on Dial-112, when they reached Village-Uma Ka Purwa, then found that some dispute in regard to land is going on between Mahendra Yadav, Ganga Prasad Yadav, Guddu Yadav on one hand and Arvind Yadav on the other hand. On counseling of police, matter was settled with great difficulty. Reading this evidence, it is submitted that there is material contradiction in the G.D. entry dated 25.02.2020 and that of 27.01.2020, vide which Shashikant Yadav had lodged a report in regard to death of Abu Sahma on 17.01.2020.

¶8

Reliance is place on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jyothi Ademma vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore and Another; (2006) 5 SCC 513 , to submit that unless employment is a contributory cause or has accelerated the death, or if the death was due not only to the decease, but also the decease coupled with the employment, then it can be said that the death arose out of the employment and the employer would be liable. Placing reliance on this judgment, it is submitted that since employer was away and there are other discrepancies in the story, therefore, award be set aside.

¶9

Sri S.D. Ojha, in his turn, supports the impugned award and places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Manju Sarkar and Another vs. Mabish Miah and Others; 2014 (4) T.A.C. 355 (S.C.), where it has been held that principle of notional extension will be applicable and when deceased met with road accident in course of his employment, then claimants are entitled to receive compensation.

¶10

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is apparent that insurance company had not led any evidence in the matter.

¶11

Sri Ajay Singh though tried to point out towards ambiguity in general diary details dated 27.01.2020, when so called employer Shashikant Yadav had lodged a report at about 19:07 hrs. It is submitted that there is contradiction in this report and the report lodged on 25.02.2020 at about 14:42 hrs, however, the fact of the matter is that in the report dated 25.02.2020, it is only mentioned that after Shashikant Yadav had approached them in relation to G.D. entry no. 39 at 19:07 hrs, then intimation was received from Dial-112, in regard to some land dispute at Village Uma ka Purwa, which is different from the village of Shashikant Yadav namely Belwarpur, therefore, no proximate connection can be made between the incident of land dispute and the report of Shashikant Yadav. It appears that after report was lodged by Shashikant Yadav, police had received intimation in regard to land dispute from Dial-112 at another village and had gone to attend the same when case was registered and proceedings were drawn under Section 151 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Insurance company has not only failed to examine any witness, but has also failed to effectively cross-examine the informer Shashikant Yadav about the accident/employment of the deceased, therefore, in absence of any effective crossexamination to deny factum of employment, it cannot be said that deceased was not employed with Shashikant Yadav, merely because he was away to Mumbai on the date of the accident.

¶13

In view of such appreciation of facts, there is no infirmity in the impugned award calling for any interference. This case is not covered by the ratio of law laid down in case of Jyothi Ademma (supra,) inasmuch as in that case, facts are different. Workman had died of heart attack and there was no evidence on record that his work was extraneous, inasmuch as it only involved work of switch on and switch off, but in the present case facts are different and squarely covered by the law laid down in case of Manju Sarkar (supra), inasmuch as employer admitted that as the truck in question had developed certain mechanical defects, deceased had travelled on motorcycle to fetch a mechanic and while returning, motorcycle skidded causing death of the deceased . Thus, there is a proximate cause between nature of employment and the injuries sustained by the deceased. Thus, there is no justification in interfering with the award, which is just and correct under such facts and circumstances of the case.

¶14

Therefore, appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.2.2021 Vikram/-

M/S National Insurance Company Limited v. Suhail Ahmad and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S National Insurance Company Limited v. Suhail Ahmad and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

sushila devi Vs united india insurance Co. Ltd. hrough manager and another

Smt. Lala Devi and Others Vs U P.S.R.T.C. and Others

Smt. Bhanu and 3 Others Vs Vishnu and 2 Others

Samrendra Pal Singh and 2 Others Vs Mohd. Shahid and 2 Others

Asha Soni and Another Vs Sri Jeetu Kumar Dua and 2 Others

Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Kusum and 6 Others