Akhtari Khatoon & Ors vs Sri Twinderjeet Singh Gujral & Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 1153 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Akhtari Khatoon & Ors vs Sri Twinderjeet Singh Gujral & Anr on 5 February, 2024

Author: Subhash Chand

Bench: Subhash Chand

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                M.A.No. 513 of 2016
Akhtari Khatoon & Ors.              .... ... Appellants
                       Versus
Sri Twinderjeet Singh Gujral & Anr. .... ... Respondents
                     ---------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Res. No.2 : Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate For the Res. No.1 : None

---------

Order No.10/ dated 05.02.2024 Learned Counsel for the Appellants Mr. Sudhir Kumar

Sharma and on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company,

learned Counsel Mr. G.C.Jha are present.

2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No.1.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that

the claimants have assailed this appeal on the ground of

quantum of the compensation. Earlier the substantial question of

law was framed by this Court and further additional substantial

question of law is being raised by learned Counsel for the

appellant that the compensation for future prospect should have

been awarded by the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court. It

has been further submitted that certainly there is no provision in

the Employees Compensation Act in regard to the future prospect

yet in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court when the

future prospect is being awarded in M.V. Act the same could have

been awarded by the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant also fairly admitted

that certainly there is neither provision nor any legal

pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court on this point yet prayed to

frame the substantial question of law as additional substantial

question of law on this point as the same analogy should have

been applied in case of compensation in Employees

Compensation Act.

5. The learned Counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company

vehemently opposed the contentions and contended that when

there is no provision in the Act and there is no legal

pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court on this point there is no

need to frame the additional point of determination.

6. However, taking into consideration the submissions made

by the learned Counsel for the parties, the following additional

point of determination is being framed as under:

(b) whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to the compensation for the future prospect on the death of deceased employee.

7. List for hearing on 04.03.2024.

(Subhash Chand, J.) P.K.S.