The Branch Manager vs Dulari Devi & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 979 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
         (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                M.A. No. 200 of 2013
                       ........

The Branch Manager, M/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Dhanbad Branch .... ..... Appellant Versus Dulari Devi & Others .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............

For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate.

For the Respondents            :
                                   ........
06/26.02.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. G.C. Jha. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment / Award dated 14.06.2013 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court- cum-E.C. Commissioner, Dhanbad in W.C. Case No. 37/2011 (c), whereby the appellant was directed to pay award of Rs. 5,09,600/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident dated 11.03.2010, till its realization and 25% of the compensation amount as against the penalty and O.P. no. 1 is directed to pay penalty of 10% of the compensation amount within 60 days of this order, otherwise both shall be liable to pay their dues with compounded interest @ of 12% per annum.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Manoj Kumar Mahto @ Manoj Mahto was working as Khalasi on Tipper bearing registration no. JH-10J-3688 belongs to Arjun Mahto and was standing on the loading point where iron ore was loaded through pay loader no. OR-04F-6215. All of a sudden during dumping of ore, Manoj Mahto slipped and came under the ore. People came and pulled out Manoj Mahto out of ore and admitted to R.M.D.L. Hospital, Gua, during treatment, Manoj Mahto died at 6:10 A.M.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that written statement was filed by Arjun Mahto before the learned Tribunal, where he has admitted that Manoj Mahto was not a permanent employee, rather a casual employee and allowed to drive his vehicle,

as such in view of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the deceased was not a workman to be compensated.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that it has wrongly been mentioned at para-4 of the impugned judgment that compensation ought to have been taken from the concerned owner of the pay loader and concerned Insurance Company, which should have been as compensation ought to have been taken from the concerned owner of the pay loader and not from the concerned Insurance Company.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that notice may be issued to the claimants Dulari Devi, wife of Bhushan Mahto and Bhushan Mahto, resident of Village - Lohpitti, P.O. - Ram Nagar, P.S. - Mahuda, District - Dhanbad as there is chance of reduction in compensation amount because of high rate of interest and penal compound interest awarded to the claimants by the learned Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that owner of the vehicle may also be noticed as he has admitted that deceased Manoj Mahto was not permanent employee, rather a casual employee and allowed to drive his vehicle. In that view of the matter, the claim application filed under Workmen's Compensation Act is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that pursuant to the order dated 14.06.2013, a sum of Rs. 7,79,193/- has already been deposited by the Insurance Company before the Executing Court, as such, notice may be issued.

Let notice be issued to the claimants namely, Dulari Devi and Bhushan Mahto as well as owner of the vehicle namely, Arjun Mahto on aforesaid address, under both process i.e. under registered cover with A/D as well as under ordinary process, for which requisites etc., must be filed within two weeks.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-