Ms. Veera Mathai and Mr. Gaurav Nair, Adv v. MOHAMMAD ARIF ANR

Judgment

1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 19231, assailing the impugned judgment dated 26.04.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, whereby the claim filed by the respondent No.1/injured employee under Section 22 of the E.C. Act has been allowed and he has been granted total compensation of Rs. 5,16,672/- payable alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from

29.07.2015 till realization, besides penalty in terms of Section 4A(3)(b) of the E.C. Act amounting to Rs. 2,58,336/-. 1 E.C. Act Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:04.04.2025 15:04:40 FAO 158/2021 Page 1 of 12

2. The grievance of the appellant/insurance company is that the liability to pay compensation including penalty has been fastened upon it contrary to the law.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 3. Briefly stated, it was proven during the course of enquiry before learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation that respondent No.1/injured was employed as a driver by respondent No.2/registered owner and on the fateful day i.e. 29.06.2015 he was driving a truck bearing No. HR-55P-6453 (12 tyre) when at about 02:00 AM, it met with an accident about 2-3 Kms from Pana Garh falling in the District Paschim Bardhaman, State of West Bengal. Respondent No.1/injured employee was proven to have suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent partial disability to the extent of 22% in the nature of physical impairment of his abdomen and lower jaw besides left knee. It was claimed during the enquiry that the earning capacity of the respondent No.1/injured employee had been substantially reduced. 4. The learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, assuming the monthly wages of the respondent No.1/injured employee @ Rs. 8,000/- per month, reckoned 60% of the same for the purpose of considering compensation and further loss of earning capacity was computed at 50%, and accordingly, the compensation was calculated as under:- i) ii) Relevant factor of 26 years :

215.28 60% of wages @ Rs. 8000/- pm : Rs. 4800/- iii) Amount of compensation

215.28 X 4800 X 50 : Rs. 5,16,672/- 100 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:04.04.2025 15:04:40 FAO 158/2021 Page 2 of 12

5. Although, it is an admitted fact that the ill-fated truck was insured by a policy of insurance dated 04.01.2015 till 03.01.2016 with the appellant/insurance company, however, in the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment primarily on the grounds that the claim filed by the respondent No.1/injured employee was barred by limitation for having been filed more than two years after the date of accident, contrary to Section 10(1) of the E.C. Act; and that no intimation with regard to the alleged disability suffered by respondent No.1 was given by the respondent No.2/registered owner/employer in terms of Section 10B of the E.C. Act; and lastly that no liability could have been imposed by the appellant/insurance company to pay the penalty in terms of Section 4A(3)(b) of the E.C. Act. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company in her submissions relied on the decisions in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi & Ors2; L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Mahavir Mahto & Anr.3; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya & Anr.4; Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata & Anr.5; Urmila Rani v. Manjit Kaur6; Mohd. Adbullah v. Manager, Trumboo Cement Industry Ltd. and Ors.7