Jharkhand High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Sarita Devi Wife Of Late Sunil Sao @ ... on 8 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 136 of 2016
----
The New India Assurance Company Ltd., having its Divisional Office at Main
Road, Ashoka Automobile Building, Opposite G.E.L. Church Complex, Ranchi,
issued from Chaibasa Branch, represented through its Asst. Divisional
Manager and duly constituted attorney of the New India Assurance Company
Ltd., Ranchi Division, Sethi Corporate, 2nd Floor, Pee Pee Compound, Ranchi.
... Appellant
-versus-
1. Sarita Devi wife of late Sunil Sao @ Aditya Sao
2. Mukesh Prasad (Minor) son of late Sunil Sao @ Aditya Sao
3. Priti Kumari (Minor), daughter of late Sunil Sao @ Aditya Sao
4. Anshu Kumari (Minor), daughter of late Sunil Sao @ Aditya Sao
5. Bhuneshwar Sao son of late Dukhan Sao
6. Basmati Devi wife of Bhuneshwar Sao
Minors are represented through their mother and natural guardian
respondent No.1
7. Sadan Kumar Gupta
... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate
----
11/ 08.12.2021 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance
Company and the counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 30(1)(a)(aa) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging and praying therein to set
aside the award dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Ranchi in W.C. Case No.1 of 2013.
3. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant-Insurance Company submits that considering the nature of accident,
the case would come under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855 and
proper remedy available with the claimants, is to file a suit for recovery of
damages from Jharkhand State Electricity Board. He submits that it is a case
that the deceased came in contact with live wire of 11000 volt and thereafter
he died. He submits that the entire negligence is on the part of Jharkhand
State Electricity Board and thus, they are liable to pay the amount of
compensation. He submits that the Electricity Board should have been made a
party before the Labour Court and award should have been passed against
the Jharkhand State Electricity Board directing them to pay proper
compensation to the deceased.
4. Counsel for the claimants submits that admittedly the deceased
was an employee of Sadan Kumar Gupta. He was employed as a driver of
hywa vehicle. He submits that when the vehicle was going to Noamundi from
Chaibasa, the driver stopped near Kerala School, Jagannathpur to chek the air
pressure of the tyre and no sooner he opened the door, the door touched a
high tension electrical wire, as a result of which deceased was electrocuted.
He submits that the entire accident occurred during course of employment. He
submits that considering the aforesaid fact and the fact that the owner was
duly insured by the appellant, the Court has rightly awarded compensation.
5. I have heard the parties and have gone through the memo of
appeal and the judgment. Admittedly, the deceased was an employee of
Sadan Kumar Gupta, as a driver. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
i.e., the appellant had duly insured the vehicle. The Insurance was also under
the Workmen's Compensation Act to indemnify the owner. These facts are not
disputed by the appellant. Since deceased was a driver working under Sadan
Kumar Gupta, in course of employment, the deceased was driving the hywa
vehicle and while going to Noamundi from Chaibasa, mid way at Kerala
School, Jagannathpur he stopped the vehicle to check the air pressure of the
tyre. When he opened the door, the door came in contact with a live high
tension electric wire and the deceased was electrocuted. This clearly suggests
that the accident arose out of and in course of employment. Since the accident
arose during course of employment and in view of the fact that deceased was
an employee of insured, the Labour Court has correctly directed the Insurance
Company to pay the compensation. Further, on the point of quantum, I find
that no illegality has been committed by the Court in calculation. Claimant
claimed Rs.9,000/- to be the monthly income of the deceased, but, in absence
of evidence, the Labour Court considered the income to be Rs.191/- per day
with V.D.A. of Rs.8/- per day, totaling to Rs.199/- per day. The total amount of
compensation was assessed as Rs.8,60,870/-. I find no illegality in the
impugned award. There are no grounds to admit this appeal. This appeal is,
accordingly, dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. No. 4063 of 2018
also stands dismissed.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
