Partly allowed

M/S.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Janaki Ballabh@Chaitanya Taisam

Orissa HC17 Oct 2017FAO/350/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order condones a ten-two day delay in filing an appeal filed by an Insurance Company, subject to payment of costs. It subsequently modifies a compensation award, reducing it from approx Rs. 5.85 lakhs to Rs. 4.40 lakhs, finding the original quantum excessive relative to the evidence served by the parties.

What did the court decide?

Modified compensation from Rs. 5,85,657/ to Rs. 4,40,000 adjusted with interests to the claimant and balance to insurer.

Considering the submission made and grounds taken in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/-, to be paid to Shri B.K. Mohan ty, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent no.1, which is paid in Court today. Misc.Case is accordingly disposed of.

17.10.2017 Though this matter was listed for orders today, on consent of the learned co unsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal by the appellant-Insurance Company is directed against the judgment/award dated 15.04.2017, passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Cuttack, in E.C. Case No.168-D of 2015, awarding an amount of Rs.5,85,657/- as compensation, to be deposited within 30 days, failing which the amount shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of accide nt, till realization.

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that as the alleged accide nt took place on 11.06.2015 and no F.I.R. had been lodged or any police case had been institut ed either by the claimant or the owner of the Truck no.OIU/5709 in connection with any such ac cident, the Commissioner erred in holding that the injured claimant sustained injuries in an a ccident, arising out of and in course of his employment. It is further submitted that as no F.I.R. had been lodged after the alleged accident and in absence of any cogent and credible ev idence available on record to show that the injured claimant was working as a helper in Truck no.OIU/5709 and sustained injuries in an accident, arising out of and in course of his employm ent, it is a clear case of a false claim being foisted with the collusion of the owner of the Truck, to avail compensation and the Commissioner was not justified in passing the impugned aw ard and saddling the liability on the present appellant, as the insurer of the Truck no.OIU/57 09.

It is submitted that there being no documentary evidence to show that the injured clai mant was getting Rs.6,000/- per month as wages, working as a helper in the Truck, the Commissi oner erred in accepting the same and assessing the compensation on that basis. In this regard , it is submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence in support of the income of the deceased, the Commissioner should have assessed the same on the basis of the minimum wages i.e . Rs.150/- per day, prevalent on the date of the accident. It is further submitted that no Di sability Certificate issued by any Medical Board having been produced by the claimant to prove his disability suffered due to the accident, the assessment of loss of earning capacity of th e injured claimant to the extent of 75% is not proper and justified. It is accordingly submit ted that the assessment of the compensation amount is not proper and justified and the award i s highly excessive.

Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent no.1 while supporting the impugned award s ubmits that the same having been passed on appreciation of the evidence available on record, n o interference is warranted.

On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that pursuant to notice, the owner of v ehicle (Truck) no.OIU/5709 appeared before the Commissioner and filed his written statement ad mitting the employment of the injured claimant, the accident and the accidental injuries susta ined by the claimant. The Commissioner has taken into consideration the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, including the medical papers and the admission by the owne r of the Truck in his written statement, in coming to hold that the injured claimant was worki ng as a helper in Truck no.OIU/5709 and sustained injuries in an accident on 11.6.2015, which arose out of and in course of his employment.

As regard the income of the injured claimant, the claimant had claimed that he was get ting Rs.8,000/- per month as wages, as a helper in the Truck. The owner of the Truck (O.P.W.1 ) in his written statement as well as in his evidence has stated that the injured claimant was getting Rs.6,000/- per month as wages. In absence of any documentary evidence to discard the evidence of the owner of the Truck, the Commissioner has accepted the monthly wages of the in jured claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month, for calculating the compensation amount payable. Coming to the injuries sustained by the claimant and the extent of disability suffered due to such injuries, the Commissioner has taken into consideration the evidence adduced by t he treating doctor (P.W.2) and has assesed the loss of earning capacity of the injured claiman

t at 75%, as a helper in the Truck. Considering the submissions made and keeping in view the quantum of compensation amoun t awarded and the basis on which the same has been arrived at, I feel, the interest of justice would be best served, if the awarded compensation amount of Rs.5,85,657/- is modified and red uced to Rs.4,40,000/- (rupees four lakh forty thousand), which is payable to the claimant, on which no interest is payable. The impugned award is modified to the said extent.

The Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Cuttack, is directed to disburse the modi fied compensation amount of Rs.4,40,000/- along with the accrued interest thereon to the claim ant on proper identification. The balance amount along with the accrued interest shall be refu nded to the appellant-Insurance Company. FAO is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

M/S.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Janaki Ballabh@Chaitanya Taisam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Janaki Ballabh@Chaitanya Taisam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Jasobanti Suna

M/S.Shriram G.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Pravat Ch.Acharya

Pravakar Rout Vs Pratap Ch.Das

D.M.,O.I.Co.Ltd. Vs Basanta Ku.Mallick

Suryamani Dalai Vs Niranjan Das

Divisional Manager,M/S.New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Jyotilata Jena