Dismissed

Th Eiff Ko-Tokio General Insurance Co. v. Mst Asmani Begum and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Sept 2022MFA/49/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The Court held that the appellants' proposed questions of law regarding driving license validity and violation of vehicle policy do not address the core issue of the deceased's employment status. As the employment relationship was a categorical finding, these questions were not substantial for this

What did the court decide?

The appeal stands dismissed; the lower court order is send down.

Th Eiff Ko-Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs Mst Asmani Begum and 4… — Insurance | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010009132017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : MFA/49/2018

¶5

TH EIFF KO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO

¶6

A JOINT VENTURE OF INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS COOPERATIVE LIMITED AND THE TOKIO MARINE AND NICHIO INSUEANCE CO. LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT 42A, SHAKESPEARE SARANI ,3RD FLOOR, FLAT NO. 3A, EXPRESS TOWER, KOLKOTTA -700017

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

MST ASMANI BEGUM and 4 ORS W/O LATE HASAN ALI @ ALIL HUSSAIN

¶9

2:MISS MINIJUMA BEGUM D/O LATE HASAN ALI @ALI HUSSAIN

¶10

3:MISS SALMA BEGUM DLO LATE HASAN ALI @ALI HUSSAIN ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF . VILLAGE JAYANTIPUR P.S. SIPAJHAR -784145. DIST. DARRANG ASSAM .(CLAIMANTS)

¶11

4:SRI K AJIT SINGH S/O K N C SINGH. R/O MANIPURI BASTI W/N.32 H/N-9 P.S. PALTANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781008. DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO.AS-01/AJ-5394)

¶12

5:SRI RAKTIM BORA

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

S/O LATE SURJYA BORA R/O BANFULNAGAR PATH H/N -60

¶15

DISPUR GUWAHATI -781006. DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM (INSURED OF THE VEHICLE NO.AS-01/AJ-5394

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.M SAIKIA

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S S S RAHMAN (R1-R3)

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Date : 02-09-2022

¶21

Heard Mr. R Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D Mondal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3.

¶22

This is an appeal under section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Kamrup in W.C. Case No.58/2010.

¶23

An appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 lies when there arises a substantial question of law.

¶24

In the memo of appeal the appellant had proposed two substantial questions of law which are as under:

¶25

“1. Whether the Commissioner for Employees Compensation had the jurisdiction to reject the document issued by a public authority under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the ground that the said document was not proved by the said Public Authority.

¶26

Whether the Insurers are liable under the provisions of the

¶27

Page No.# 3/5

¶28

Employees Compensation Act for compensation under the Act when there is a violation of the condition of the Policy by the owner of the vehicle.”

¶29

To appreciate as to whether the said substantial questions of law so proposed, can be framed in the instant appeal, let this Court take into consideration the facts of the instant case.

¶30

The case of the claimants is that their husband/father one Hassan Ali @ Ali Hussain was an employee of the respondent No.4 working as a driver of his vehicle bearing registration No.AS-01/AJ-5394. On 15.09.2009 while the vehicle was proceeding towards Nagaon, some miscreants forcefully entered into the vehicle with an intention to take away the vehicle and to facilitate the crime the miscreants killed the driver ie., Hassan Ali and threw away the dead body which was later recovered by the Jamunamukh Police.

¶31

The respondent No.4 herein had lodged an FIR at Paltanbazar PS which was registered and numbered as Paltanbazar PS Case No.512/2009 under Section 392 IPC.

¶32

It would be seen that pursuant to the said FIR being lodged, the Paltanbazar police had submitted the charge-sheet vide CS No.93/2010 dated 31.08.2010 under Sections 379/302/201/34 IPC.

¶33

The claimants filed a claim petition stating inter alia that at the time of the death of Hassan Ali (since deceased), he was 35 years old and he used to receive salary @ Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.50/- as daily allowance.

¶34

The respondent Nos.4 & 5 herein failed to submit their written statement despite sufficient scope was being given to them and they remained absent throughout the proceedings. The appellant herein i.e., the Insurance Company filed their written statement denying the contents of

¶35

Page No.# 4/5

¶36

the claim petition. Relevant to take note of that in the written statement the Appellant denied that the deceased husband of the claimant who was the driver, had any valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged incident. It was also denied that the husband of the claimant died due to the accident arising out of and in course of his employment. In the written statement, the Appellant further denied the rate of salary and the age of the deceased as claimed by the claimants in their claim petition.

¶37

On behalf of the claimants they adduced the evidence of one witness and the appellant/opposite party had led evidence of its Area Manager, Shri Ankur Bora.

¶38

The authority below after taking into account the evidence on record came to a finding that Rs.4,000/- as monthly salary is just and proper and taking into account the age of the deceased to be 35 years, awarded compensation of Rs.3,94,120/- along with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of accident i.e., 15.09.2009 till the date of deposit along with Rs.5,000/- as funeral cost on account of death of their father/husband arising out of and in the course of his employment.

¶39

The appellant/Insurance Company was directed to deposit the said amount of compensation along with interest and funeral cost within 30 days from the date of order for disbursement to the claimants.

¶40

It is in the backdrop of the said order dated 19.08.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation in W.C. Case No.58/2010, the present appeal was preferred by proposing the substantial questions of law as quoted herein above.

¶41

A perusal of both the substantial questions of law is in relation to the question that Hassan Ali (deceased) did not have a valid driving license. However, the said questions so raised do not in any manner deal with the question that Hassan Ali (deceased) was not an employee of the

¶42

Page No.# 5/5

¶43

respondent No.4.

¶44

A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that it is the categorical finding arrived at that Hassan Ali (deceased) was an employee of the respondent No.4. The said two questions of law so proposed may have been questions of law relating to a matter coming within the ambit of the provisions of MV Act, 1988 but the same cannot be considered to be a substantial question of law in a proceeding under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 which is the beneficial act to provide for payment by certain classes of employers to their employees of Compensation for injury by accident.

¶45

Under such circumstances, the said two substantial questions of law so proposed do not arise for consideration in the instant appeal.

¶46

Accordingly the appeal stands dismissed.

¶47

Send down the LCR.

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Comparing Assistant

Th Eiff Ko-Tokio General Insurance Co. v. Mst Asmani Begum and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Th Eiff Ko-Tokio General Insurance Co. v. Mst Asmani Begum and 4 Ors.

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

Raj Kumar Mishra and 3 Ors. Vs M/S Eastern Cargo Movers and Anr.

Union of India Vs Kangan Dutta and Anr.

Jotika Haldar Vs Tapan Barman

Advent Multi Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Nanak Deka

Johirul Islam , Vs the Chief Branch Manager and 2 Ors.

M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smti. Prathiva Phukan and 2 Ors.