Disposed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Md. Abdul Hai and Anr.

Gauhati HC3 Sept 2019MFA/77/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of an appeal regarding employee compensation where the medical evidence on injury permanence was missing. The court settled on an amount of Rs. 1,80,000 liable by the appellant, adjusting for prior partial payments.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to pay a balance of Rs. 1,80,000 (minus prior 50% deposit) with 7.5% interest from the date of judgment.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Md. Abdul Hai… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010013942014

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : MFA 77/2014

¶5

1:NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶6

A COMPANY REGISTERED AND INCORPATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3 MIDDLETON STREET KALKATA 700071 AND ONE OF ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH

¶7

GUWAHATI-5 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1:MD. ABDUL HAI and ANR

¶10

S/O MD. KUDDUS ALI PERMANENT R/O RANGAGARA HOJGAON NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM.

¶11

2:MD. HASSAN KHA S/O LATE JARIP KHA DHING FATE P.O. HAIBORGAON DIST. NAGOAN ASSAM

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

P R E S E N T

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶15

For the appellant : Ms. S. Roy, Advocate,

¶16

For the Respondents : Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, Advocate

¶17

Date of hearing : 03.09.2019 Date of Judgment & : 03.09.2019 Order

¶18

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

¶19

(Oral)

¶20

Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶21

The claim before the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, Tezpur, Sonitpur resulting in Case No.SCW 10/2001 was that on 2.2.2001 when the claimant, who was working as a driver in Truck No.AS-25/0358, was proceeding from Nagaon, had met with an accident at a place called Gumutha gaon. As a result of the accident, as per evidence of the doctor who had attended to the claimant workman, he had sustained injuries on low back region. In the evidence of the doctor, an opinion was given that the claimant workman had suffered 40% disability and he has lost his earning capacity by 50 per cent.

¶22

We have taken note that the doctor in his evidence had not specifically stated as to whether the injuries sustained by the workman claimant was of permanent in nature or it was of temporary nature.

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

The Commissioner has per judgment and award dated 22.08.2013 had awarded an amount of Rs.2,49,280/- plus simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition.

¶25

Being aggrieved, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

¶26

The core ground urged by the appellant is that the doctor having not deposed whether the injury sustained by the workman was of permanent or temporary in nature, the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation was incorrect in awarding the compensation by taking it to be a claim under Section 4(1)(c) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

¶27

In order to appreciate the same, we have perused the evidence of P.W. 2, the Medical Officer, who had examined the injuries sustained by the workman claimant. Upon going through his evidence, we, in-fact, find that there is no conclusion and/or opinion expressed by the medical officer as to whether the injuries sustained by the workman claimant was of permanent in nature or it was of temporary nature. The nature of injuries sustained also makes it indeterminable for the Court to arrive at a specific conclusion as to whether it was of permanent in nature or it was of temporary nature. As the injuries were sustained about 20 years back, it will be inappropriate to remand the matter back for fresh evidence on the nature of the injuries sustained. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that in the meantime the workman is at an advance age, approximately by 20 years.

¶28

In view of the impediments, as indicated above, we are of the view that if the appellant and the workman claimant arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement as to the amount of compensation, then the ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, Ms. S.Roy, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company as well as Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

workman claimant arrive at a settlement that if the claimant appellant pays a compensation amounting to Rs.1,80,000/-, the same would meet the ends of justice.

¶31

The said settlement as arrived at is also acceptable to us also from the point of view that if ultimately we arrive at a conclusion that the workman claimant would be covered by Section 4(1) (d) of the Act, then there would perhaps be a maximum compensation of Rs.90,000/- or if the workman claimant compensation is covered by Section 4(1)(c) of the Act, then the compensation awarded by the Workmen for Employee’s Compensation would have been adequate.

¶32

In view of the above, we direct the appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation to the respondent workman claimant plus an interest at the rate of 7.5% as awarded by the Commissioner, but from the date of the judgment and not from the date of the claim or the injury.

¶33

It is stated that at the time of admission of the appeal, 50% of the awarded amount was deposited before the Registry of this Court and the note of the Registrar General shows that an amount of Rs.1,24,640/- was received by the claimant workman on 23.04.2015. It appears to us that the appellant Insurance Company had paid 50% of the awarded amount of Rs.2,49,280/-.

¶34

Accordingly, pursuant to the above, the appellant Insurance Company shall now pay the balance amount of Rs.1,80,000/- minus 50% of Rs.2,49,280/- and pay an interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of judgment on the said balance amount. The payment be made within one month to the respondent workman.

¶35

The appeal stands disposed of .

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

Comparing Assistant

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Md. Abdul Hai and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Md. Abdul Hai and Anr.

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

Samsun Nehar Mazumder and 4 Ors. Vs Ala Uddin Mazumder and 5 Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Must. Anowara Khatoon and Anr.

Junti Koch Vs Bhaba Koch

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Md. Ismail Hussain and Anr.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Jadav Deka and Ors.

Sri Subala Barman and Anr. Vs Rajendra Baishya and 5 Ors.