Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Oriental Insurance Co vs Kamla And Others on 15 March, 2024
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
2024:PHHC:038013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.912 of 2001
Date of Decision: 15.03.2024
Oriental Insurance Company
.....Appellant
Versus
Kamla and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Argued by:- Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate
for the appellant-Insurance Company.
Respondents No.1 to 7 proceeded against ex-parte
vide the order dated 14.05.2002.
Mr. S.P. Arora, Advocate and
Mr. Abhivrat Arya, Advocate
for respondents No.8 and 9.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (for short 'the Competent Authority') under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Circle Kurukshetra, Camp at Kaithal, on 09.10.2000, whereby respondents No.1 to 7-claimants (here-in-after to be referred as 'the claimants') have been granted an amount of Rs.2,22,411/- (Rs.1,86,900/- as compensation + Rs.35,511/- as interest accrued thereon) along-with further interest @ 12% per annum, on account of the death of Hari Singh S/o Ram Dhan and the appellant-Insurance Company (here-in-after to be referred as 'the insurer') has been directed to pay this amount to them, it (insurer) has chosen to prefer the instant appeal to lay challenge to the same. YAG DUTT 2024.03.17 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO No.912 of 2001 -2- 2024:PHHC:038013
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, as emanating from the perusal of the Record and culminating in the filing of the present appeal, are that claimant No.1 is the wife and claimants No.2 to 6 are the children whereas claimant No.7 is the mother of the above-named deceased and they all joined hands to file a Claim Application for seeking compensation of Rs.5 lac from the insurer and respondents No.8 & 9, while averring that the deceased had been working with respondent No.8 (here-in-after to be referred as 'the employer') as 'Driver' on his truck bearing registration No. HR-08-0195 with the monthly wages @ Rs.2,500/- and usual allowances. On 04.03.1999, as per the instructions of the employer, he (deceased) had gone to Delhi in the afore-said Truck to deliver the rice bags, belonging to respondent No.9-consignor but however, he never reached the destination, the godown of the consignee. Later-on, his dead-body was recovered from the area falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Samaypur Badli and it transpired that he had been strangulated to death by some miscreants. The employer and the consignor filed their joint written-statement and the insurer submitted its separate written-statement, wherein they contested the claim of the claimants on various grounds. Then, the parties had been put to the trial by framing the issues and after appreciating and evaluating the evidence led by them on the record and hearing their learned counsel, the Competent Authority allowed the above-referred Claim Application and awarded the compensation to the claimants vide the impugned order, as already discussed in the opening para of this judgment.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-insurer as well as learned counsel for respondent No.8-employer and respondent No.9- YAG DUTT 2024.03.17 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO No.912 of 2001 -3- 2024:PHHC:038013 consignor in the instant appeal and have also gone through the record carefully.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has contended that the claimants have sought the compensation on account of the death of Hari Singh whereas it has specifically been mentioned in Exhibit P2, the copy of Post-Mortem-Report (PMR) that the dead-body of an unknown person, having tattoo marks 'K.P' in English and 'Karan Pal' in Hindi on its fore- arm, had been brought to the hospital by the police for its post-mortem examination and this fact makes it explicit that the afore-said dead-body had wrongly been identified as that of said Hari Singh and the claimants have erroneously been granted the compensation on the basis thereof and therefore, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and it deserves to be set-aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.8 and 9, i.e the employer and the consignor respectively, have argued that the impugned order is perfectly legal and hence, the present appeal deserves dismissal.
6. Though as mentioned in PMR Exhibit P2, the dead-body of an unknown person had been brought to the Hospital by the police for autopsy but it is worth-while to point it out here that a specific note has also been appended thereon qua the subsequent addition of the name of the deceased therein as Hari Singh son of Ram Dhan. To add to it, Exhibit P4 is the copy of the Challan/Charge-Sheet, submitted by the police against the accused named Rajinder and Shrawan in the criminal case registered under Sections 302, 379, 411 read with Section 34 IPC, consequent upon the recovery of the dead-body, which had been subjected to the Post-Mortem-Examination YAG DUTT 2024.03.17 15:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment FAO No.912 of 2001 -4- 2024:PHHC:038013 as reported vide PMR Exhibit P2 and it has categorically been mentioned therein (Challan/Charge-sheet) that during the course of investigation, the deceased had been identified as Hari Singh, i.e the driver of the above-said truck. The afore-discussed evidence remains unrebutted and unchallenged on the record as the insurer has not led even an iota of evidence to belie/ negate/falsify the same. In these circumstances, mere factum of the above- mentioned tattoo marks, 'K.P' and 'Karan Pal', having been found on the fore-arm of the said dead body, does not suffice at all to paint the entire afore-narrated evidence regarding the identification of the same as that of said Hari Singh, with black colour. Even otherwise, as per the common practice prevailing since long, many persons, instead of getting their own names tattooed on their body parts, get the marks or names of the persons or things, closely related to them, tattooed on their hands and other parts of the body and it being so, such tattoo marks cannot be construed to be the sole decisive factor to establish or disprove the identity of any person.
7. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or perversity so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the same is, hereby, upheld and the appeal in hand, being sans any merit, stands dismissed.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
th
March 15 , 2024 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
YAG DUTT
2024.03.17 15:16
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment