Tripura High Court
Sri Abdul Mannan vs Smt. Sabita Debnath on 6 January, 2022
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP 51 of 2021
Sri Abdul Mannan
Son of Abdul Matin
C/o: Sri Pradip Das,
Resident of Krishnanagar, T.P Road,
PO: Agartala, PS: West Tripura,
Sub-Division: Sadar, District: West Tripura
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Smt. Sabita Debnath
wife of Late Haripada Debnath
2. Sri Sagar Debnath
son of late Haripada Debnath
3. Smt. Manti Debnath
wife of Sri Bijoy Debnath
daughter of Late Haripada Debnath
All are residents of Madhyermura, PS: Amtali
PO: Sekerkote, District: West Tripura
PIN: 799130
4. The National Project Construction Company Ltd.
represented by the Zonal Manager, North Eastern Zone,
House No.2 2nd Floor Apranjan Palli, Sonai, Silchar, Assam.
5. The Manager,
National Project Construction Company Ltd.
Old Kalibari Lane, Krishnanagar, Agartala,
PS: West Agartala, District: West Tripura, PIN 799001.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. Sarkar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Nath, Adv.
Date of hearing: : 23.12.2021.
Date of pronouncement : 06.01.2022.
Whether fit for reporting : Yes
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order
Heard both sides.
[2] It is the case of the petitioner that the court below has errored
in passing the award in favour of the petitioner herein who was the
respondent before the trial court. While granting the award to the
respondents herein, the petitioner was not given any opportunity before
the concerned officer in the trial court hence the said order has been
passed ex-parte against him and the same is contrary to law.
[3] Further the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
interlocutory application bearing 02 of 2021 arising from 51 of 2021 filed
by the respondents herein before this court seeking vacation, modification
the order dated 31.08.2021 passed in IA 1 of 2021 arising out CRP 51 of
2021 is perverse.
[4] It is apparent from the records that the deceased person was
working with the petitioner herein as worker. In the process of working, an
electric pole fell on him causing severe injuries on his person. Thereafter,
the deceased person claimed a compensation of Rs.6,31,944/- initially for
the injury he suffered from that accident. During pendency of the suit, the
health of the deceased Haripada Debnath kept deteriorating and
subsequently died and his legal representatives i.e. the respondents were
substituted in his place and they claimed further compensation of Rs.
5,08,320/- stating that the deceased employee died due to said accidental
injuries. The Commissioner Employees' Compensation, West Tripura,
Agartala after thorough consideration of the matter, held that the
respondents herein are entitled to get compensation of Rs.9,36,200/-
(Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty Six Thousands Two Hundred) only.
[5] Opposite party No.3 in the trial court though appeared and on
some occasion prayed for adjournment to submit the written statement but
ultimately did not file it and lastly as per order dated 19.01.2015 the case
proceeded exparte against him.
[6] It is the contention of the petitioner that he, the opposite party
No.3 in the trial was not present all throughout the proceeding in the trial
court. He has not got any right for seeking adjournment and filed a written
objection. In view of the above, the finding of the lower court that no
opportunity was not given to the petitioner herein and no notice was given
to him, this is a negative statement made by the petitioner.
[7] The petitioner herein appeared before the lower court needs
no further notice and his absence the matter was adjudicated. Since he did
not turn up despite several adjournment the said order has been passed.
[8] Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner that no notice was
given by the lower court and impugned order is passed without notice
stands vacated. It is the contention of the petitioner that the application
made by the respondent in IA 02 of 2021 arising out of CRP 51 of 2021
under Section 151 of the CPC for vacating or modifying the order dated
31.08.2021 delivered in IA 01 of 2021 arising out from the instance CRP is
not maintainable.
[9] The petitioner further contends that the order awarding the
respondent for getting compensation was not just and proper because the
trial court has failed to verified the income and damage done to the
respondent and arbitrarily passed the award in favour of the respondent
herein. It is the specific contention of the opposite party No.1 and 2 before
the court below by way of written objection that the deceased was never in
employment under them and they further moved on to state unequivocally
that they did not know any person namely Haripada Debnath. Even they
also further claimed that the Opposite party No.3 was never their
contractor and he was unknown to them. They also stated they were never
aware of the incident met by Haripada Debnath (now deceased) and
injuries suffered and treatment received by him as they were not
connected with any such contract work.
[10] This court finds that the trial court has observed the presence
of the petitioner on number of occasion and he prayed for adjournment to
submit the written statement but ultimately did not file it and lastly as per
order dated 19.01.2015 the case proceeded ex-parte against him. The said
fact has not got its mention in the instant CRP filed by the petitioner and
there is no denial either.
[11] It seems that the petitioner herein (opposite party No.3) in the
trial court has approached this court to put an end to this litigation stating
that the deceased was not an employee but learned Commissioner had
drawn a presumption that the deceased was the employee of the petitioner
and in the absence of any evidence, thereto, the impugned order dated
11.02.2019 is liable to be quashed.
[12] It has been observed by the court below that the petitioners
therein were claiming that the deceased was employee under opposite
party no.3 who was working as contractor under Opposite part nos.1 and
2. Though, the PW2 and PW3 stated the deceased was directly an
employee under opposite party nos.1 and 2 and even PW2 introduced him
before the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 but his said evidence is directly
contradicting with the pleading of the petitioners therein and appears to be
after thought thus same cannot be accepted. Be that as it may, the
opposite party no.3 did not contest the case to deny the claim of the
petitioners that the deceased was an employee under him at the time of
incident. There is also no document to show that opposite part no.3 was
performing said work as contractor under opposite nos. 1 and 2. Thus, it is
held that the deceased was working under opposite party no.3 at the time
of accident and as such if any compensation is awarded to the petitioners,
opposite party no.3 will be responsible to pay the same.
[13] The respondents have claimed the daily wage of the deceased
to be Rs.200/- and same appears to be very reasonable during the year
2011 though no document is submitted by the petitioners in this regard.
Thus the monthly income of the deceased is taken to be Rs.6000/- Thus,
compensation is assessed to be Rs.3000 x 169.29 = Rs.4,98,870/-. Further
a sum of Rs.5000/- is added as funeral expenses. The respondents
submitted cash memos/vouchers of Rs.4,32,341/- out of which
Rs.38,877/- was incurred for air tickets and Rs.3,30,890/- was paid in
AMRI hospital as interim bill but the petitioners did not produce final bill of
said hospital. Thus, further Rs.4,32,341/- is added with said compensation
as medical expenditure. Thus, if any compensation is awarded to the
petitioners, then they will be entitled to get Rs.9,36,211/- rounded off to
Rs.9,36,200/-
[14] It is evident from the disability certificate (Exbt-7) that the
deceased was suffering from paraplegia due to spinal cord injury and due
to the said disease he was suffering from paralysis of lower portion of body
below waist and his disability was of permanent in nature to the extent of
95%. The said disability certificate was issued by the Member Secretary,
District Disability Board, West Tripura.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, this court is of
the view that the in order to shift the burden of paying the compensation
amount to the respondents, the petitioner has prepared a story. He has
intentionally brought the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 into the litigation so
as to evade his liability towards the deceased. This court finds that the
award passed by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, West
Tripura, Agartala dated 11.02.2019 is just and proper and needs no
interference by this court.
The said award dated 11.02.2019 stands affirmed.
Accordingly, this CRP stands dismissed.
Interlocutory application, lying pending, if any, also stands
closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
