The Patna High Court, while dismissing an appeal filed under Section 30(1) (a) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, being aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner by which the compensation of Rs. 12,80,890/ with 6 % per annum was awarded in favour of applicants against the appellant, held that unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business.
Brief Facts:
Nasir Ahmad, the husband of applicant no.1, was employed as a driver of respondent no. 9. While he was checking the tires of his truck standing on the side of the road, another vehicle dashed him due to which Nasir Ahmad sustained grievous injury and died on the spot. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant. On the basis of the documents filed by applicants, statements of witnesses, and statements of the owner of the vehicle, the learned Commissioner holds that the deceased was employed as a workman on the truck in question, and during the course of employment, he died in the accident.
Contentions of the Appellant:
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that notice on the appellant had not been served and he was deprived of contesting the case. He argued that the applicant has failed to establish the employer and employee relationship and there is no proof that the employer was making payment of wages to the deceased.
Contentions of the Respondents:
Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that despite service of notice, the appellant Insurance Company had not appeared before the learned Commissioner, and the Insurance Company cannot take advantage of its own wrong. The employer had filed the written statement and admitted the fact with respect to the employer-employee relationship and the wages and allowance paid to the deceased.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the appellant/Insurance Company, despite service of notice did not appear in the case, and did not contest the case. The employer had filed his written statement but did not contest the case.
The Court observed that Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication sent by the post would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Further, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. In the present case, the appellant has not proved that notice has not been served to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the contention of the appellant that notice was not served to him cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that there was no merit in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and the same is dismissed
Case Title: The IFFCO vs Shamima Khatoon & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra
Case No.: Miscellaneous Appeal No.433 of 2017
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jai Prakash Verma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :