Dismissed

Smt. Madhuri Dikhsit v. U.P. Ganna Shodh Parishad and Others

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2022FAFO/1267/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a compensation claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court upheld the Commissioner's finding that the appellant failed to prove the deceased's kidney ailment and death were caused by insecticide used at work.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Smt. Madhuri Dikhsit Vs U.P. Ganna Shodh Parishad… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1267 of 1998

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Madhuri Dikhsit Respondent :- U.P. Ganna Shodh Parishad And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ranjit Saxena,Shubham Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Learned counsel for the respondent is not present.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, challenging the award dated 30.10.1998 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Shahjahanpur in Case No.10/WCA/93, by which the Commissioner has rejected the claim petition of plaintiff/appellant.

¶8

The claim petition has been instituted by the claimant/appellant under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, claiming compensation for the death of her husband, namely, Navin Chandra Dixit.

¶9

The case of the appellant is that her husband Navin Chandra Dixit was an employee in U.P. Ganna Shodh Parishad, Shahjanpur. The insecticides were being spread in the library to protect the book, and because of insecticide Navin Chandra Dixit had suffered ailment in kidney, which caused his death on 20.08.1996 in Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow, accordingly, the claimant/appellant claimed compensation of Rs.33,783/- along with penalty and interest.

¶10

The claim petition was contested by the respondents contending inter-alia that the insecticide were never used in the library,

¶11

inasmuch as racks in the library were sprayed with insecticide during manufacturing. Further case of the respondents was that the cause of death of the deceased was not due to infection by the insecticide. It was further pleaded that no post mortem of the deceased was conducted and there is nothing on record to indicate that the cause of death of the deceased was due to infection by insecticide, nor any document was produced to demonstrate that the deceased suffered ailment of kidney on account of the insecticide used in the library.

¶12

The respondents also produced Manager Singh, Senior Scientist Officer, Bal Govind Dixit Accounts Officer, Abdul Nadim Khan,Senior Librarian etc.

¶13

The Commissioner found that the claimant/appellant has failed to establish that the deceased had died due to ailment of kidney which he suffered due to use of insecticide. The Commissioner further found that no post mortem was conducted and as such, it was not possible to determine the cause of death of the deceased, accordingly, the Commissioner did not find any merit in the claim petition and dismissed the same.

¶14

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there was ample evidence on record to demonstrate that the deceased had died due to kidney failure which had occurred due to spray of insecticide in the library where the deceased was working.

¶15

Be that as it may, the record reveals that the respondents had produced Abdul Nadim Khan who was Senior Librarian, who categorically stated that the no insecticides were ever used in the library. Similar testimony was also given by the other persons produced by the respondents, namely, Bal Govind Dixit etc. The claimant did not produce any evidence to substantiate

¶16

her claim that the deceased had suffered ailment in kidney due to use of insecticides. This Court may further note that no post mortem of the deceased was conducted which could throw some light for the cause of death of the deceased. As the claimant has failed to prove that the deceased had died due to ailment of kidney which had been caused due to use of insecticide in the library and death of the deceased was during the course of employment and, this Court finds that the finding of the Commissioner is finding of fact and does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶17

The appeal lacks merit. It is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶18

Order Date :- 9.9.2022

¶19

¶20

Digitally signed by SARAL SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.17 17:00:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Madhuri Dikhsit v. U.P. Ganna Shodh Parishad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Madhuri Dikhsit v. U.P. Ganna Shodh Parishad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Arun Pratap Singh and 2 Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Alld. Vs Uma Devi and Others

Istkhar and Others Vs Smt. Santri and Others

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Gurdev Singh and Others

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Deoria Vs Smt Kusmi and Others

Giridhar Gopal Khandelwal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another