New India Assurance Company Limited, Vidya Market, Laxmi Talkies Complex, 2nd Floor, Lepo Road v. 1. Geeta Devi, Wife of Late Raju Yadav. 2. Santoshi Kumari, Daughter of Late
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 669 of 2017 with I.A. No. 3669 of 2018 New India Assurance Company Limited, Vidya Market, Laxmi Talkies Complex, 2nd Floor, Lepo Road, Hazaribagh, P.O. Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, District - Hazaribagh, represented through its Divisional Office No. 1, P.P. Compound, P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Chutia, District- Ranchi. … … Opp. Party No. 2/Appellant Versus 1. Geeta Devi, Wife of Late Raju Yadav. 2. Santoshi Kumari, Daughter of Late Raju Yadav, Aged 10 years. 3. Abhishek Yadav, Son of Late Raju Yadav, Aged 7 years. 4. Dhanpat Yadav, Son of Late Churo Yadav. 5. Basanti Devi, Wife of Sri Dhanpat Yadav. Respondent No. 2 & 3 being minor are represented through their mother & natural Guardian, Geeta Devi, Respondent No.1. All resident of Village- Beko, P.O. Nayitarh, P.S. Jainagar, District- … Applicants/Respondents Koderma. … 6. Ideal Movers Private Limited, 55-56, Transport Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh and M/S Ideal Movers Private Limited, Ground floor, Nand Niketan Shopping Complex, Essar, Hazira, Surat (Gujarat). … Opp. Party No.1/Respondent … CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
--- : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate --- 05/22.07.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. I.A. No. 3669 of 2018 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is a delay of 74 days in filing the present appeal and the interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay. He has referred to the statements made in the interlocutory application and submits that the delay be condoned. 3. No counter-affidavit has been filed to the interlocutory application. However, learned counsel for the respondents has not raised any serious objection with regard to condonation of delay during the course of hearing. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3669 of 2018 is allowed and the delay in filing this miscellaneous appeal is hereby condoned. M.A. No. 669 of 2017 5. At the joint prayer of the learned counsel for the parties, the case has been taken up for final disposal. 6. This appeal has been filed for the following reliefs: "That this appeal is directed against the Order dated 29.06.2017 passed in W.C. case No. 38/ 13 by Sri Raj Nandan Rai, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the Learned Court has awarded Rs. 10,39,000/- to the Applicants/ Respondents and has directed the Appellant to pay the same within a period of 90 days failing which interest @ 6% per annum shall be payable from the date of order till the date of realization." 7. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 29th June 2017 passed in W.C. Case No. 38 of 2013 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribagh whereby the learned Court has awarded Rs. 10,39,900/- to the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and has directed the appellant to pay the same within a period of 90 days, failing which interest @6% shall be payable from the date of the order till realization. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant, while referring to the impugned judgment, has submitted that though salary certificate was filed, but the employer did not appear before the Court to prove the same. He has further submitted that the employee had expired as a result of electrocution when the vehicle came in contact with live wire 2 and therefore, it cannot be said that he died during the course of employment. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment is a well-reasoned judgment considering every aspect of the matter and the salary of the deceased employee has been taken only to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He has further submitted that the relationship of employer and employee is not in dispute and the manner in which the accident had taken place, is also not in dispute. He has further submitted that the accident had taken place when live wire touched the vehicle while the employee was driving the vehicle and therefore, it cannot be said that the accident had not taken place during the course of employment. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the case was filed under Employee's Compensation Act numbered as W.C. Case No. 38 of 2013 on account of death of one Raju Yadav. The claimants asserted that Raju Yadav had expired during motor vehicle accident and he was the driver of trailor. 11. The materials on record which have been discussed in the impugned order reveal that the relationship of employer and employee is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that the deceased was driver of trailor. The details of the vehicle have also been mentioned in the impugned order which is not in dispute during the course of hearing. The age of the deceased was claimed to be 30 years and claim was made to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs with interest @9%. 3 12. During the proceedings, witnesses were examined from the side of the claimants. Both oral and documentary evidences were led. So far as the employer company is concerned, no evidence was led. 13. The learned Court, considering the evidences on record found that there was enough material to prove that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 10,000/- and ultimately calculated the compensation as mentioned in the impugned judgment itself. No argument has been advanced in connection with the calculation made in the impugned judgment whereby the learned Court assessed the quantum of compensation to the extent of Rs. 10,39,900/-. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was insured and the insurance company also did not lead any evidence and there was no dispute before the learned Court regarding the fact that the vehicle was insured. 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality and no case has been made out for interference in the impugned judgment. 15. Accordingly, this miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. 16. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 17. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Court concerned through 'FAX'. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4