Jharkhand High Court
Divisional Manager vs Kunti Devi on 2 September, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:26713
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 51 of 2011
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Dhanbad Divisional
Office, B.P. Agarawala Building, Dhansar, P.O. & P.S. Dhansar, Dis-Dhanbad,
represented through its Asst. Manager and Incharge, Legal Cell, National
Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi Division, S.N. Ganguly Road, Main Road, Ranchi,
P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Kunti Devi, W/o Late Jailal Mahato @ Jalal Mahato
2. Dumar Chandra Mahato, S/o Late Jailal Mahato @ Jalal Mahto
3. Tupali Kumari, D/o Late Jailal Mahato @ Jalal Mahto
4. Bhagia Kumari, D/o Late Jailal Mahato @ Jalal Mahto
5. Lilo Mahato, S/o Late Jailal Mahato @ Jalal Mahto
All are residents of village and post office-Jamtara, P.S. Dumri, District-
Giridih, presently residing C/o Durga Mahato, Village-Tantri, P.O. & P.S.-
Topchanchi, District-Dhanbad
6. Prabhat Kumar, S/o Harendra Kumar Prasad, R/o Dhori Staff Quarter, Bermo,
P.O. & P.S.-Bermo, District-Bokaro
... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant :Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Shekher Prasad Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Satya Narayan Kumar, Advocate
------
Order No. 21 / Dated : 02.09.2025.
The Insurance-Company is in appeal under Section 30 (1) (a) (aa) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment/ order dated
30.10.2010 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Dhanbad in
W.C. Case No. 12/2008, whereby and whereunder, a compensation of Rs.
3,56,980/- has been awarded to the claimants for the death of Jailal Mahato @
Jalal Mahto during course of his employment while he was driving truck bearing
registration no. JH 09H-4751 on 16.01.2008.
2. Learned Commissioner awarded the compensation by recording a finding
of fact that the accident took place during course of employment under opposite
party no. 1- Prabhat Kumar and the said truck was under the insurance cover of
the appellant-insurance company at the relevant time of accident.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance-Company assailed
the order by referring to para 5 of the written statement filed by the owner of the
vehicle, that the deceased was not a permanent employee and was working as a
driver of the said truck on daily basis. It is contended that in view of the
2025:JHHC:26713
admission on the part of the owner, the deceased will not come within the
definition of workman in 2(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
4. Learned counsel on behalf of the claimants has defended the impugned
award.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced of both sides, the plea taken
on behalf of the Insurance-Company is not sustainable in view of the amendment
in Section as amended by 2000 Amendment Act by which Section 2(n) has been
deleted, vide amendment dated 08.12.2000.
6. As per the amended provision, "workman" means any person who is a
person recruited as driver, helper, mechanic, cleaner or any other capacity in
connection with a motor vehicle. In view of the above definition, there is no
requirement that the workman should be under a permanent employment. The
definition is not specific with respect to the nature of employment, but it only
says that he was working as a driver and will come within meaning of workman.
Under the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the impugned award.
Accordingly, Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/
