Dismissed

Div.Manager, National Insuranc v. Umesh Prasad And Anr.

Jharkhand HC9 Apr 2019MA/52/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an appeal against a workmen's compensation award. The Court held that sufficient evidence, including an investigation report and authorization letter, established the employer-employee relationship and the accident during employment. It found no merit in the objections regarding venue or procedural lapses. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company was dismissed; the impugned judgment and award of the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Workmen's Compensation Commissioner are ratified and confirmed.

Div.Manager, National Insuranc Vs Umesh Prasad And… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

M. A. No. 52 of 2011

¶3

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Sector- I, Ram Mandir, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. and P.S. – Bokaro, District Bokaro, represented through its Asst. Manager, Legal Cell, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi Division, S.N. Ganguly Road, Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. Ranchi P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi.

¶4

… … Opp. Party No. 2/Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

UMESH PRASAD, S/o BHAGIRATH PRASAD, Kuwar Singh Colony, Chas, P.O. Chas, P.S. Chas, District – Bokaro. … … Applicant/Respondent

¶7

ANUJ KUMAR SINGH S/o D. Singh, Qtr. No. 3-073, Section-2D, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. – Bokaro, District – Bokaro.

¶8

… … Opp. Party No. 1/Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶10

--For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate For the Resp. No. 1 :Mr. Rajiv Anand, Advocate For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Javed Sultan, Advocate ---

¶11

11 /09.04.2019

¶12

1. Heard Mr. G.C. Jha, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

¶13

2. Heard Mr. Rajiv Anand, counsel appearing on behalf of Claimant (Respondent No. 1).

¶14

3. Heard Mr. Javed Sultan, counsel appearing on behalf of owner of the vehicle (Respondent No. 2).

¶15

4. This appeal has been filed against judgment and award dated 19.01.2011 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner-cumWorkmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro in W. C. Case No. 19 of 2009 (C), whereby the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner awarded an amount of Rs. 2,21,004/- to the Applicant/Respondent payable by the appellant within 60 days from the date of the order, failing which interest @ 10% per annum was payable till realization.

¶16

5. Counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that the compensation which was assessed by the Workmen’s

¶17

¶18

Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro has been deposited by the Insurance Company within the stipulated time before the learned court below.

¶19

6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the following substantial questions of law are involved in this case as follows:-

¶20

(i) “Whether claim application under Employee’s compensation Act, 1923 can be entertained without the employee - employer relationship and without accident caused during course of employment?

¶21

(ii) Whether in absence of any evidence of accident dt. 02.09.2008 i.e. F.I.R. station Diary or any proof of treatment at Vishakapatnam Govt. Hospital, Gajbaka, District- Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh any liability in connection with the injuries sustained leading to 50% disability, can be accepted?

¶22

(iii) Whether the impugned proceedings are vitiated on account of violation of the provisions of section 21 of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, regarding the venue of the proceeding and its transfer process by the W. C. Commissioner, Bokaro?

¶23

(iv) Whether liability could be fastened upon the appellant without producing any documents of employment of the complainant/driver by the employer in truck No. JH-09AF-7390 by the W.C. Commissioner, under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923?”

¶24

7. Counsel for the appellant while advancing his argument submits that there was no documentary evidence regarding relationship of employer and employee between the owner of the vehicle and the claimant and no evidence that the accident had taken place during the course of employment. Further, there was no evidence that the accident had taken place at Vishakapatnam. He further submits that the claimant had

¶25

¶26

contended that the accident had taken place at Vishakapatnam, therefore, the claim petition ought to have been filed at Vishakapatnam and once the claim is filed at Bokaro, the first proviso to Section 21(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 was required to be complied with, which clearly provides that no matter shall be processed before or by a Commissioner other than the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area, in which accident took place, without his giving notice in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State Government Concerned.

¶27

8. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there is no question of law, much less any substantial question of law in terms of Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, involved in this case. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed, interalia, on the basis of the investigation report, conducted by the surveyor/loss accessors/investigator who had conducted the inspection or investigation at the instance of appellant Insurance Company and has submitted his report dated 31.05.2010 and he has clearly found that the claimant, who was in the vehicle, met with an accident in course of employment on 02.09.2008, while tighting the rope and has also given a finding that the accident is proved, in which, the claimant sustained 50% permanent disability.

¶28

9. Counsel for the respondents further submits that merely because no documentary evidence was produced in connection with hospitalization at Vishakapatnam, the same is not enough to reject the claim of the claimant. He submits that on the face of the investigation report of the surveyor appointed by the appellant, it is not open to the appellant to say that there was no material before the learned court below justifying the passing of the impugned order. He further submits that the owner of the

¶29

¶30

vehicle had clearly stated that the claimant was his employee and had also produced an authorization letter to that effect. On the basis of the evidences including the authorization letter, the learned court below has come to a finding that there was an employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle and the claimant had sustained injuries during the course of employment to the extent of 50% disability and accordingly the impugned judgment has been passed.

¶31

10. Counsel for the respondents submits that so far as the requirement of first proviso to Section 21 of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 is concerned, no such objection was ever raised by the Insurance Company before the learned court below. Further, it has also been indicated in the impugned order that the workman himself had issued a letter to the authority at Vishakapatnam that he is lodging his claim at Bokaro. He further submits that the letter of the workman along with the postal receipt by way of speed post is already on record and accordingly, no interference is called for on account of this point.

¶32

11. After hearing the counsels for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the specific case of the claimant before the learned court below was that the claimant had suffered disability to the extent of 50% when he met with an accident while tighting the rope in Truck No. JH-09F-7390 at Vishakapatnam and then he came back to Bokaro, during which he was treated at Bokaro Hospital.

¶33

12. This Court further finds that one investigation report dated 31.05.2010 was submitted pursuant to investigation undertaken at the instance of the appellant Insurance Company and as per the investigation report, the letter of authorization, authorizing the claimant by the owner of the vehicle, was not only produced before the surveyor at the time of investigation, but was also produced before the learned court below. Apart

¶34

¶35

from this, the driver and the Khalasi of the vehicle have been examined before the learned court below and the owner of the vehicle has filed a written statement accepting the relationship of employer and employee.

¶36

13. This Court further finds that there was enough material on record to establish the relationship of employer and employee before the learned court below, who has appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned order. Accordingly, the point regarding the employer employee relationship as argued by the appellant is based on cogent evidence and no question of law, much less, any substantial question of law is involved in connection with finding of employer employee relationship.

¶37

14. So far as the accident is concerned, this Court finds that the learned court below while considering this aspect of the matter has also considered the investigation report of the surveyor of the appellant, who had found that the fact about accident as claimed by the claimant as proved. In such circumstances, it cannot be said, as argued by the appellant, that there was no materials on record before the learned court below to come to a conclusion that the accident had taken place at Vishakapatnam. Accordingly, this point also does not involved any substantial question of law and the argument of the appellant that the accident had taken place at Vishakapatnam was based on no evidence, is hereby rejected. 15. So far as other point regarding first proviso to Section 21 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 is concerned, this Court finds that no such objection was ever taken by the Insurance Company before the learned court below and further the learned court below has taken note of the fact that the claimant himself had informed the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner at Vishakapatnam by a letter that he would be filing his claim at Bokaro and this letter was sent by speed post.

¶38

¶39

This Court finds from the Lower Court Records of this case that this letter is on record along with original postal receipt.

¶40

16. This Court finds that as per Section 21 of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, the claim for compensation can be filed before the Commissioner for the area in which-

¶41

(a) the accident took place, which resulted in injury; or

¶42

(b) the [employee] or in case of his death, the dependent claiming compensation ordinarily resides; or

¶43

¶44

In the instant case, the employee is resident of Bokaro, where the claim has been filed.

¶45

17. This Court is of the considered view that the learned court below having not taken any steps on its own, in terms of first proviso to Section 21 of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 can at best be said to be a procedural lapse, but considering the fact that the claimant had himself taken steps to inform the authority at Vishakhapatnam regarding filing of claim at Bokaro, the impugned order is not vitiated on this ground. Moreover, the Insurance Company never raised any such objection to the proceeding before the authority, who has passed the impugned order and fully participated in the proceeding. Therefore, at this appellate stage, after having participated in the proceeding before the learned court below, such objection on the part of the appellant is not sustainable. Accordingly, no substantial questions of law arise out of this point before this Court.

¶46

18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶47

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶48

Mukul

Div.Manager, National Insuranc v. Umesh Prasad And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Div.Manager, National Insuranc v. Umesh Prasad 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

M/S Fertilizer Corporation of Vs M/S Balaji Laminating Works

Fertilizer Corporation of Indi Vs M/S.Balaji Laminating Works

Sumitra Devi Vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mahesh Kumar Khirwal Vs Ramlal Sao And Anr.

Satya Narayan Khirwal Vs Surendra Pal Singh And Ors.

Tisco,West Bokaro Colliery Vs Mahadeo Agaria And Ors.