Dismissed¶14

The Oriental Ins Co. Ltd. v. Archana Karmakar and Anr.

Calcutta HC3 Apr 2025FMAT (WC)/7/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: FMAT(WC); The Oriental Insurance Company Limited; Archana Karmakar; employer and employee relationship; Exhibit-6; Purna Chandra Saha; vehicle owner; Jhantu Kumar Karmakar; driver; accident 22.11.2005; Swapan Raha; authorised representative; vague denial and avoidance; admission-stage dismissal; no substantial question of law; CAN 1 of 2025; Smita Das De, J.; decided 03.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Having carefully read the evidence and the impugned order, the Court accepted the Learned Trial Court's finding that the employer and employee relationship was established, the Trial Court having relied upon Exhibit-6. ¶9

The Oriental Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Archana Karmakar and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether an employer and employee relationship existed between Jhantu Kumar Karmakar (the original claimant/driver) and Purna Chandra Saha, the claimed owner of the vehicle Jhantu was driving when the accident occurred.

¶8

Court's answer

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Purna Chandra Saha's evidence amounted to vague denial and avoidance; it was difficult for him to deny his signature on several documents including the authorisation letter, all of which were marked as exhibits without objection.

¶11

Key takeaways

In view of unimpeachable evidence, and since the matter involved no substantial question of law, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage along with CAN 1 of 2025.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal (FMAT(WC) 7 of 2025) by The Oriental Insurance Company Limited against a Learned Trial Court order finding that an employer and employee relationship existed between Jhantu Kumar Karmakar — the original claimant, who suffered a severe fracture on his scalp and died during the pendency of the claim petition, being substituted by his wife Archana Karmakar — and Purna Chandra Saha, claimed owner of the vehicle Jhantu was driving when the accident occurred (stated in deposition to have happened on 22.11.2005). Though served notice, Saha filed no written objection and sought no time to file one; Swapan Raha, earlier deposing as Saha's authorised representative, had affirmed Saha's ownership of the vehicle and Jhantu's employment as its driver; Saha's later testimony was one of vague denial and avoidance, his signature on several documents including the authorisation letter being difficult to deny, the exhibits having been marked without objection. Holding the evidence unimpeachable and the matter free of any substantial question of law, Smita Das De, J. dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, along with CAN 1 of 2025.

¶1

23 03.04.2025

¶2

Ct-08

¶3

FMAT(WC) 7 of 2025 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2025

¶4

¶5

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Archana Karmakar & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee … For the Appellant

¶7

Mr. Biplab Guha Mr. Subrata Das Gupta

¶8

1. The original claimant suffered severe fracture on his scalp and ultimately succumbed to death during the pendency of the claim petition and is substituted by his wife Smt. Archana Karmakar. The Insurance Company in this appeal has raised a dispute with regard to the employer and employee relationship between Jhantu Kumar Karmakar and Purna Chandra Saha, who claimed to be the owner of the vehicle which the Jhantu was driving at the time when the accident occurred.

¶9

2. We have carefully read the evidence as well as the impugned order. Learned Trial Court relying upon the Exhibit-6 arrived at a finding that the employer and employee relationship was established. Purna Chandra Saha although was served notice did not file any written objection to the claim petition as he denied in his evidence to have filed a written objection alleged to have been

¶10

¶11

affirmed by a person claimed to be his authorized representative. Shri Saha did not accept it to be his written objection. At the same time he did not file any written objection after being served with a notice. He did not even prayed for time to file any such objection. Initially, one Swapan Raha deposed on behalf of Purna Chandra Saha as his authorised representative where he had clearly stated that Purna Chandra Saha was the owner of the vehicle in question and Jhantu Karmakar was employed as driver of the said vehicle that had made an accident on 22.11.2005. Subsequently, Purna Chandra Saha surfaced and deposed that he never authorised Swapan Raha to depose on his behalf. In the cross-examination he has stated that he has not filed any written statement nor anyone has been authorised to appear on his behalf. However, the reason for not contesting the said proceeding was not explained. The evidence of Purna Chandra Saha seems to be one of vague denial and avoidance. It is difficult for him to deny his signature in several documents including the authorization letter. All these letters were marked as exhibits without any objection. The Learned Trial Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence arrived at a finding that the original

¶12

¶13

claimant suffered severe injury on his scalp in course of his employment.

¶14

3. In view of unimpeachable evidence and having regard to the fact that it does not involve any substantial question of law, the appeal is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage along with CAN 1 of 2025.

¶15

4. Urgent Photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.

¶16

(Smita Das De, J.)

¶17

The Oriental Ins Co. Ltd. v. Archana Karmakar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Ins Co. Ltd. v. Archana Karmakar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Jiaur Rahaman Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Bhim Rajwar Vs Shankar Karmakar and Ors.

Prasanta Kumar Mahato Vs Mrinal Kanti Khawas and Ors.

The Oriental Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Bapi Das and Ors.

Sahajan Sardar and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Debasmita Basu Vs Koushik Roy the D.I. of Schools (S.E.) Malda and Ors.