Jharkhand High Court

Rajhans Transport & Warehousing Co. ... vs Bandana Kumari on 30 July, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                             ( 2025:JHHC:20995 )




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        M.A. No. 07 of 2020

       1. Rajhans Transport & Warehousing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Patna represented
          through its Director, Rajesh Kumar Singh, aged near about 55 years,
          son of Shri Nagina Singh, resident of N.C. Ghosh Lane, Jakanpur, P.O.
          and P.S. Jakanpur, District-Patna, Bihar.       Address of M/s Rajhans
          Transport & Warehousing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Patna having its office at Flat
          no.-801, Gharounda complex (Near Jagdo Path More), Bailey Road,
          Khazpura, P.O. and P.S. Shastri Nagar, District-Patna (Bihar)
       2. Vidyapati Singh, aged about 54 years, son of late Ganpat Singh, Owner
          of Rajhans Transport and Warehousing Company Private Limited,
          resident of Flat No. 104, Dwarka Apartment, Morabadi, P.O. and P.S.
          Bariyatu, District-Ranchi

      .                                             .......Appellants
                           ...VERSUS...

      1. Bandana Kumari, aged about 43 years, wife of late Ajay Kumar Singh
      2. Shivam Kumar (minor) son of late Ajay Kumar Singh represented through
         his mother Bandana Kumari
      3. Richa Bharti aged about 15 years, daughter of late Ajay Kumar Singh
         represented through mother bandana Kumari
         Respondent no.1 to 3 are resident of at Mohalla-Rashikpur, C/O
         Bidyhanand Singh, village Gauri Vihar, Post & Police Station/District-
         Dumka (Jharkhand)

      4. Rajendra Kumar Rout, son of late Shankar Rout, resident of Dudhani
         Opposite Hero Honda Showroom, P.O. and P.S.          Dumka Town,
         Subdivision and District-Dumka
      5. Sanjay Kumar Mahto son of Bharat Mahto, resident of village-Jarpura,
         P.O.and P.S. Jama, Sub-Division and District-Dumka
                                   .......Respondents

          CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

For the Appellants                  : Mr. Prakash Chandra, Advocate
                                      Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate
                                     Mrs. Neetu Verma, Advocate
For the Resp Nos. 1 to 3           :-Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 4 and 5        : Mrs. Bakshi Bibha, Advocate
                      ..........

15/Dated: 30/07/2025 Heard Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.

Onkar Nath Tiwary, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. Bakshi

Vibha, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 01.07.2019

passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum- Commissioner, Employees

Compensation, Deoghar in E.C. Case No. 12 of 2013 whereby the appellants have

( 2025:JHHC:20995 )

been directed to pay Rs. 8,74,237/- to the respondents with simple interest @ 12%

and in default of payment they will pay an additional simple interest at the rate of 6%

on the calculated sum (i.e amount of compensation plus 12% simple interest thereon)

from the date of default.

3. The claim was made by the legal heir and successor of the deceased

stating that husband of claimant no.1 and father of minor claimant nos. 2 and 3

namely, Ajay Kumar Singh son of Bidyanand Singh, resident of Mohall-Rashikpur,

Gouri Bihar, Dumka, P.O, P.S. Subdivision and District-Dumka was employed as Office

Assistant under the appellants herein i.e Rajhans Transport & Warehouse Co. Pvt.

Ltd since 05.02.2009 at the scale of Rs. 7,500/- per month. It has been alleged

that in course of employment under the appellants herein late Ajay Kumar Singh

while engaged in his duty at Rajhans Warehouse Company Private Limited

Rajhans Weigh Bridge situated at Block Campus, Dumka met with an accident

resulting his death on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle driven

by Sanjay Kumar Mahto, son of Bharat Mahto, resident of village Jarpura, P.O.,

P.S. Jama Subdivision and District-Dumka. On the information lodged on the basis

of statements made by Rakesh Kumar Singh at about 10.15 A.M. Dumka P.S. Case

No. 106 of 2012 was registered. It has been alleged that at the time of accident

the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 10,500/- per month and he was

aged about 38 years at the time of occurrence and in course of employment said

accident has taken place. In this background the learned Presiding Officer, Labour

Court has been pleased to pass the judgment and award.

4. Mr. Prakash Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants challenges the

said award on the ground that learned court has not appreciated the evidence on

record and erred in passing such award. He submits that the said award is not

sustainable in the eye of law and in view of that impugned award may kindly be set

aside.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, learned counsel for the

( 2025:JHHC:20995 )

respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that admission is already made by the appellants in

written statement before the learned Presiding Officer that the deceased was working

in employment of the appellants and considering that aspect of the matter the learned

court has passed the said award. He submits that there is no illegality in the

impugned award.

6. Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5

submits that the learned court has rightly passed the said award and there is no

illegality in the impugned award as such this petition may kindly be dismissed.

7. Pursuant to order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, trial court

record has been received.

8. It is an admitted position that Ajay Kumar Singh was working with the

appellants as has been admitted in para 5 of the written statement of the appellants.

The dispute between employer and employee relationship is made out in view of such

admission in the written statement. This aspect of the matter has been elaborately

discussed by the learned Presiding Officer in the impugned award. In the trial court

daily attendance sheet was exhibited as annexure-8 series and Ajay Kumar Singh is

said to be one of one of the employee and he has signed the attendance register.

Thus, the employment has been further proved with the appellants. Thus, in course

of employment such accident has taken place, that is proved.

9. The word "accident" has already been defined long ago in Fenton V.

J. Thorley and Co., (1903) A.C. 443 and it has been considered in the case of "

Som Dutt Builders Ltd. Vs. Phool Kumari, wife of late Manbirender Singh "

2004 (74) DRJ 626 wherein para 9 it has been held as under;

"9. What the word "accident" means was settled long ago in Fenton v. J. Thorley and Co., [1903] A.C. 443. After reviewing the case law, the title of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 and its preliminary sections, Lord Macnaghten concluded on page 448 of the Report that:

"... the expression "accident" is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked-for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed." On page 453 of the Report, Lord Lindley said: "The word "accident" is not a technical legal term with a clearly defined meaning. Speaking generally, but with reference to legal liabilities, an accident means any unintended and unexpected occurrence which produces hurt or loss. But it is often use to denote any unintended and unexpected loss or hurt apart from its cause; and if the cause is not

( 2025:JHHC:20995 )

known the loss or hurt itself would certainly be called an accident. The word "accident" is also often used to denote both the cause and the effect, no attempt being made to discriminate between them. The great majority of what are called accidents are occasioned by carelessness; but for legal purposes it is often important to distinguish careless from other unintended and unexpected events."

10. "Accident" during the course of employment in the workman

compensation Act was also subject matter in the case of "Mackinnon Machenzie

and Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak" 1969 (2) SCC 607, para 5 is

quoted hereunder:-

"5. To come within the Act the injury by accident must arise both out of and in the course of employment. The words "in the course of the employment"

mean "in the course of the work which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it." The words "arising out of employment" are understood to mean that "during the course of the employment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of the service, which, unless engaged in the duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe the workman would not otherwise have suffered." In other words there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression "arising out of employment" is again not confined to the mere nature of the employment. The expression applies to employment as such -- to its nature, its conditions, its obligations and its incidents. If by reason of any of those factors the workman is brought within the zone of special danger the injury would be one which arises 'out of employment'. To put it differently if the accident had occurred on account of a risk which is an incident of the employment, the claim for compensation must succeed, unless of course the workman has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act. In Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. v. Highley [(1917) AC 352] Lord Sumner laid down the following test for determining whether an accident "arose out of the employment":

"There is, however, in my opinion, one test which is always at any rate applicable, because it arises upon the very words of the statute, and it is generally of some real assistance. It is this: Was it part of the injured person's employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused his injury? If yes, the accident arose out of his employment. If nay, it did not, because, what it was not part of the employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do, cannot well be the cause of an accident arising out of the employment. To ask if the cause of the workman was within the sphere of the employment, or was one of the ordinary risks of the employment, or reasonably incidental to the employment, or conversely, was an added peril and outside the sphere of the employment, are all different ways of asking whether it was a part of his employment, that the workman should have acted as he was acting, or should have been in the position in which he was, whereby in the course of that employment he sustained injury."

11. Once the employee succeeds to prove that accident has occurred in

course of employment he is entitled for compensation.

12. In the case in hand, the learned court has come to the conclusion that

the accident has occurred at the place of employment. In the beneficiary piece of

( 2025:JHHC:20995 )

legislation by a cogent judgement the learned court has allowed the compensation.

13. In this aspect of the matter has recently been further considered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Daivshala and Others Vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr." reported in 2025 INSC 904.

14. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the learned court has

rightly passed the award. There is no illegality in the said award. Accordingly, this

appeal is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed.