Allahabad High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Smt. Ram Beti And 2 Others on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2951 of 2017
Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thru Its Reg. Manager
Respondent :- Smt. Ram Beti And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Hari Nath Chaubey
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri Hari Nath Chaubey, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents no.1 and 2.
2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed against the judgment and Order dated 19.07.2017 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur in E.C. Case No.154 of 2011 awarding the compensation of Rs.59,79,463.00/-
3. The facts, in brief, are that on 01.05.2011, Dhirendra Singh S/o claimant-respondent no.1 was driving the truck bearing No.UP-78-BN-5237. When the truck met with an accident, Dhirendra Singh sustained injury and thereafter succumbed.
4. A claim petition was filed before the Employees Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The Deputy Labour Commissioner framed the following issues:-
"1. ???? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ????????? ???-1 ?? ???? ???? ??????-??????-78-??????-5237 ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????????? ??? -? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???????
2. ???????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?
3. ???? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ????????? ???-2 ?? ???? ??????????? ???? ????? ?? ? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???????
4. ???? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ? ?? ??? ???? ???"
5. Vide judgment and award dated 19.07.2017, a sum of Rs. 5,79,463/- was awarded to the claimant.
6. Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Insurance Company had taken a ground that the Court at Kanpur did not have the jurisdiction and it was the Commissioner at Palval who had the jurisdiction to decide the claim petition, but the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kanpur without framing the issue had proceeded to pass the award. He further submitted that there is no relationship between employer and employee, and the employer did not appear before the Court below.
7. Sri Chaubey, learned counsel appearing for claimants-respondents submitted that the Deputy Labour Commissioner had rightly proceeded to decide the claim and no such objection was taken by the Insurance-Company during the proceedings.
8. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. In para 22 of the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, only the reference of Section 21 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 has been made, but no pleading to the effect that the Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction was taken by the Insurance Company. It is totally a new case set up by the Insurance Company before this Court.
10. This Court finds that the Insurance Company had appeared before the Commissioner and contested the matter by filing written statement and till the award was made, no such plea was raised by the Insurance Company.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no such case for interference is made out in the award dated 19.07.2017. The Commissioner had found that the relationship of employer and employee stood on the basis of statement of cleaner of the truck.
12. This Court finds that once the statement was recorded which remained un-rebutted by the Insurance Company, no case for disturbing the finding recorded by the Commissioner arises.
13. Appeal fails and is, hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022
SK Goswami
