Jharkhand High Court
Divisional Manager vs Surendra Murmu on 27 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 62 of 2011
-----
1. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Ranchi Patna
Road, N.H. 33, P.O. & P.S.-Hazaribagh, Town & Dist.-Hazaribagh
2. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. P.O. & P.S.-Dhansar,
Town & Dist.-Dhanbad ... .... Appellants
Versus
1. Surendra Murmu, S/o Kashi Nath Manjhi, R/o Vill-Paharpur, P.O-
Rajgunj, P.S.-Katras, Dist.-Dhanbad at present P.O & P.S.-
Vishnughar, Hazaribagh
2. Kashi Nath Manjhi, S/o Late Babulal Manjhi, R/o Vill-Paharpur,
P.O-Rajgunj, P.S.-Katras, Dist.-Dhanbad at present P.O & P.S.-
Vishnughar, Hazaribagh ... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Pradip Kr. Prasad, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
13 / Dated : 27.02.2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
1. The instant Misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-
National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the Award of compensation dated
13.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation,
Hazaribagh in W.C. Case No.12 of 2007 whereby and whereunder, the
Commissioner has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,87,504/-
within sixty days of the Award, failing which, the said compensation
amount along with interest from the date of claim application till the
date of its realization to the claimant who sustained injury in a motor
vehicle accident resulting in amputation of his left hand.
2. One Surendra Murmu was engaged as cleaner in a jeep bearing
registration no. JH-10C 6606 which met with an accident regarding
which, Pirtand P.S. Case N. 05 of 2003 was registered on 03.04.2003.
3. Claimant (Surendra Murmu) aged about 26 years was drawing a
salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month and food allowance to the tune of Rs. 50
per day.
4. The impugned order/ Award has been assailed by the appellant-
Insurance Company. The respondent no. 2 was the owner of the
offending vehicle whereas the claimant no.1 is his son.
5. Earlier the claim case was dismissed by the Workmen
Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribagh, vide order dated 24.03.2009
and the impugned order/ Award has been passed on a review application
preferred by the claimant(s).
6. Vide order dated 22.08.2019 and subsequently vide order dated
19.02.2025, the instant appeal has been admitted to be heard on the
following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether the judgment of the Commissioner Workmen's
Compensation Act can be sustained in the eyes of law in
view of the fact that no issues were framed on the point
whether there existed any relationship of employer and
employee between the owner and the injured?
(ii) Whether the findings of the Commissioner are absolutely
cryptic and without considering any of the evidence, can
be sustained in the eyes of law?
(iii) Whether in absence of any premium paid, the khalasi can
be compensated by the Insurance Company?
(iv) Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner
had power to review his earlier final order by which the
claim application of the Workman was dismissed?
7. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants-
Insurance Company that while exercising of review jurisdiction only
errors apparent on the face on record can be corrected and no review
application on the merit of finding can be revisited. The commissioner
committed egregious error of law by entering into the merit in the
review application.
8. It is further argued that on facts as per the FIR relied upon by
the claimant(s), both the driver and the cleaner had fled away after the
accident, therefore, there was no occasion for the claimants and the
cleaner to have sustained injury in the said accident.
9. Further, the policy of insurance did not cover against the cleaner
as it was confined to nine persons plus one.
10. Since the claimant [Surendra Murmu] happens to be the son of
the owner of vehicle, as such, it cannot be accepted that he was the
employee for being awarded compensation.
11. Reliance is placed in Ramashray Singh Vs. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 664.
12. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the claimant-
respondent that a cleaner comes within the definition of workman as
given under Section 2(1)(dd)(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923.
13. Before taking up the substantial question of law Nos.(i), (ii) and
(iii), it shall be desirable to consider the substantial question of Law
no.(iv).
14. It is not in dispute that earlier the claim application was
dismissed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner vide order
dated 24.03.2009 on the ground that the deceased was not a Workman.
Subsequently, a review application was filed on behalf of the claimants
which has been allowed by holding that the deceased to be a Workman
under his father. The learned Court below thereby entered into the merit
while considering the review application.
15. Law is settled that there is no power or review given if the
order is made for compensation either 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act.
16. Under Section 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in
case the order is made for compensation against the final order.
17. The Patna High Court in the case of Basudeo Rao vs.
Jagarnath Singh [1987- I L. L. N. 637] and Rajbir Singh vs. S.K.S.
Yadav [1995 SCC OnLine Del. 280] has also held that there is no such
power or review available to the competent authority under the Act
unless the case falls within the four corners of Section 6 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act.
18. Here in the instant case, after the final order, dismissing the
claim application, the Court of learned Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner reviewed his order which was impermissible.
19. Under the circumstances, the substantial question No.(iv) is
answered in favour of the appellant.
Accordingly, the impugned order being not sustainable is set
aside.
The instant Misc. Appeal stands allowed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/ AKT
