National Insurance Company Ltd vs Tuni Dei And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 12198 Ori

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  FAO No.612 of 2020

                 National Insurance Company Ltd.          ....           Appellant
                                         Mr. Ramani Ranjan Mohanty, Advocate
                                            -versus-
                 Tuni Dei and Others                      ....        Respondents
                               Mr. K.C. Nayak, counsel for Respondent Nos.1-3

                           CORAM:
                           SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                          ORDER

26.11.2021 Order No.

05. 1. Heard Mr. R.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. K.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the claimants - Respondents.

2. The present appeal by the insurer has been directed against the award dated 30th September, 2019 of the learned Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.467-D of 2013.

3. The learned Labour Commissioner has directed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.6,23,940/- in favour of claimants - Respondents on account of death of the deceased on 7 th June, 2013. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased while working as a helper in Raj Laxmi Bus bearing registration No.OR 05 AT 6663 died on the given date due to fall from the bus while washing the same..

4. The sole contention of the Appellant is that it is not a case of accident but a case of murder which was initially reported by the brother of the deceased to the police. But subsequently in connivance with police the murder was given the colour of accident. It is submitted that considering the recitals of the F.I.R. in Mahanga P.S. Case No.92 of 2013, the P.M. report as well as the viscera report, it is clearly established that the death of the deceased is murder. Thus it is urged by the Appellant that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation, the death being not accidental.

5. In answering to this submissions raised by the Appellant, it is submitted on behalf of the claimants that as per the charge-sheet dated 16th October, 2013 of the police, clear finding has been given by police that the death is due to accidental fall while washing the bus. The said charge-sheet submitted by police has been accepted by the concerned court as such. It is further submitted that considering the complaints, Crime Branch has taken over the investigation and the charge-sheet has been submitted by the Crime Branch itself to which no protest has been raised.

6. Having heard both parties, it is found undisputed that as per the charge-sheet dated 16th October, 2013 submitted in Mahanga P.S. Case No.92 of 2013, the death of the deceased is due to accidental fall. Nothing brought on record by the Appellant to dispute the findings of the charge-sheet or acceptance of the same by concerned Court. It is also submitted on behalf of the claimants that the charge sheet as submitted by police has been accepted by the Court to drop the case as mistake of facts. Thus whatever dispute may be regarding post mortem examination report or in the viscera report, the same cannot raise any question at the present stage against the findings given in the charge-sheet which was already accepted by the concerned criminal court. The findings of the charge-sheet cannot be reopened in the present proceeding under the Employee's

Compensation Act. Moreover no further evidence than the police papers to contradict such finding in the charge-sheet is produced on record in the present proceeding. Accordingly the contention of the Appellant to treat the death of the deceased as murder instead of accident is rejected.

7. It is the specific finding given by the learned Commissioner in the impugned judgment under issue No.III that the insurer - Opposite Party No.2 did not raise any dispute regarding wage of the deceased and fail to produce any contradictory evidence to the same. In course of hearing also the Appellant did not raise any dispute towards the wage of the deceased. Thus, the determination made by the learned Commissioner towards monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- cannot be faulted with. Accordingly no infirmity is seen to interfere with the impugned award of the learned Commissioner.

8. Since the entire awarded amount has been deposited before the learned Commissioner, the same be disbursed in favour of the claimants with accrued interest within a period of four weeks from today.

9. The appeal is dismissed.

10. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K.Panda