Orissa High Court
Divisional Manager vs Gobha Singh And Another on 3 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
FAO No.230 of 2018
Divisional Manager
M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .... Appellant
Mr.Nayan Bihari Das, Advocate
-versus-
Gobha Singh and another .... Respondents
Mr.K.C.Nayak, Advocate for Respondent No.1
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
03.03.2022
Order No.
8. 1. Heard Mr.Das, learned counsel for the Appellant and
Mr.Nayak, learned counsel for Respondent No.1.
2. The present appeal by the Insurer is directed against the
impugned judgment/award dated 27th December, 2017 passed by
the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-cum-Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in W.C.Case No.234-D/2010,
wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.3,69,642/- has been
granted on account of death of the deceased in course of and
arising out of his employment as a helper in the truck bearing
registration no.OR-05E-5677.
3. The sole ground of challenge of the Insurer is that the death
of the deceased is no way connected to the nature of employment
and as such the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. But
the Commissioner without discussing the nature of death of the
deceased has directed for payment of compensation.
4. Having heard both parties and upon perusal of the impugned
award, it reveals that the Commissioner while discussing under
Issue Nos.1 & 2 has come to the opinion that the death of the
deceased is relating to hard labour, stress and strain during the
course of employment without answering to the contents of the
postmortem report under Ext.7 and opinion of the doctor under
Ext.3. This is questioned by the Appellant in the present appeal.
5. Perusal of the postmortem report under Ext.7. It reveals that
the opinion was reserved pending chemical analysis of routine
viscera. In the final opinion dated 24th March, 2010 under Ext.3,
the doctor upon examination of viscera came to the opinion that,
"from the above mentioned findings, I am of the opinion that
death of the deceased could have been due to complications of
intake of some atypical/uncommon poisonous substance which
has failed detection during the chemical analysis."
6. Here it is important to look into the observations of the doctor
recorded in the same Ext.3. It is mentioned in the observation part
that, as per the P.M. report no injury, either externally or
internally, revealed on the dead body of the deceased and the
stomach contents were consistent with ingestion of some toxic
irritant substance. Further all the organs were found intact and
congested and as per the chemical examination report, neither any
insecticidal, alkaloidal or metallic poison could be detected in the
preserved viscera. On a conjoint reading of the observations and
the opinion expressed in Ext.3, nothing is seen to conclude that
the deceased had taken any poisonous substance. Admittedly, the
deceased died in course of discharge of his duty while coming in
the vehicle from Gudiakateni to Cuttack on a sultry summer day
i.e., on 28th June, 2008. So the contention of the Appellant in this
regard is not proved on record.
7. Considering the circumstances of death and the specific
opinion of the doctor that no poisons substance could be detected
in the viscera during the chemical analysis, it can safely be
concluded that the death of the deceased could be a result of
stress, strain and hard labour as concluded by the learned
Commission. Accordingly no merit is seen in the contention of
the learned counsel for the Appellant to substantiate the appeal.
8. In view of the discussions made above, this Court does not
find any merit to interfere with the impugned award. However,
the penal interest as directed by the Commissioner is waived. The
entire award amount deposited before the Commissioner be
disbursed in favour of the claimant within two months from today
along with accrued interest.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
C.R.Biswal
