Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 781 (ORI)

Managing Director v. Kuntala Jena

2006-11-10

A.S.NAIDU

body2006
JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. : M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. has preferred this appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Com¬pensation Act, 1923 challenging the order dtd. 17th August, 2005 passed by Asst. Labour Commissioner and Commissioner for Work¬men’s Compensation, Rourkela in W.C. Case No.3/2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,63,900/- with a direction that if the amount is not paid within 30 days of the order, the claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28.10.2003 till realisation. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts leading to filing of the aforesaid case are as follows : The Workmen’s Compensation Case was registered on the basis of an application filed by Kuntala Jena, W/o. Late Kasinath Jena, an employee of Rourkela Steel Plant. It is alleged that the said Kasinath Jena died in an accident arising out of and in course of his employment. It is stated that he was working as an operator in the Sintering Plant of Rourkela Steel Plant. On the fateful day, i.e., on 16th September, 2003 at about 6.30 A.M. after completion of his ‘C’ shift duty he was returning to his Quarters No.A/196 situated at Sector-20, Rourkela. He got down from a Bus near ‘D’ Block of Jhumpudi Market Chowk and was proceeding tow¬ards residence by walk, Suddenly a three wheeler Tempo came in front of him. To avoid collision the deceased, it is alleged, took a turn but fell down in the drain existing by the side of the road. He sustained severe injuries on his head, chest and hip and became unconscious. He was taken to the Ispat General Hospi¬tal (for short IGH) in a Tempo. He was admitted in that hospital where he remained under treatment as an indoor patient, but unfortunately he succumbed to the injuries on 29th September, 2003. It is alleged that he was receiving more than Rs.4,000/- per month as his salary and was 54 years at the time of his death. His widow claimed a compensation of Rs.2,78,260/-. 3. The Steel Authority of India on receiving notice ap¬peared and filed its written statement admitting the employment, age and salary of the deceased, but then repudiated the claim of compensation on the ground that the accident did not take place out of and in course of his employment. His widow claimed a compensation of Rs.2,78,260/-. 3. The Steel Authority of India on receiving notice ap¬peared and filed its written statement admitting the employment, age and salary of the deceased, but then repudiated the claim of compensation on the ground that the accident did not take place out of and in course of his employment. The specific plea of the appellant before the Court below was that after completion of his job the deceased reached his house and he went out to pluck flowers for performing puja and while doing so he fell down and sustained injuries. Thereafter immediately he was removed to the IGH by his family members where he succumbed to the injuries. It is further stated that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him which had no connection with his employment and the appellant disowned its liability. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties two issues were framed by the Commissioner for adjudicating the case. Both the parties adduced evidence, both oral and documentary. The claimant got herself examined as P.W.1 and supported the averments made in the claim petition. She stated that after com¬pleting ‘C’ shift duty her husband was returning home by a Bus when the accident took place. She was cross-examined in extenso. In course of examination she had stated that she was not present at the time of accident. After coming to know about the accident and the fact that her husband had been removed to IGH she went to the IGH at about 8.30 A.M. Nothing much could be elicited from her cross-examination to disprove her statement. she had denied the suggestions that the deceased fell down from roof of their quarters and that the injuries were not caused by an accident which occurred while he was returning from Hospital. 5. P.W.2, the Tempo driver, had clearly stated that he did not know the identity of the deceased. He further stated that on 16.9.2003 while he was driving his Tempo, near ‘D’ Block, Sector-20, Rourkela, a person got down from the Duty Bus. Hearing the horn of the Tempo he trembled and fell down on the roadside Nala and became unconscious. Thereafter people gathered and he was asked to take the injured to the Hospital for treatment. He further stated that on 16.9.2003 while he was driving his Tempo, near ‘D’ Block, Sector-20, Rourkela, a person got down from the Duty Bus. Hearing the horn of the Tempo he trembled and fell down on the roadside Nala and became unconscious. Thereafter people gathered and he was asked to take the injured to the Hospital for treatment. He came to the residence, collected fare and took the inured to the Hospital in unconscious state and left him in the casualty. Noth¬ing contradictory could be elicited from his evidence though he was cross-examined in extenso. The opposite party got examined three witnesses on its behalf and exhibited some documents. After scrutinizing the evidence, the Commissioner came to the conclu¬sion that the accident took place when the deceased was returning home from his duty and that the same arose out of and in course of his employment. It is stated that he sustained head injuries and was treated at IGH, but then succumbed to the injuries. Considering the age and salary of the deceased as per section 4(1)(a) read with Chapter-IV of the Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2000 (Act 46 of 2000) the Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,63,900/-. 6. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire evidence adduced by the claimant if properly assessed would reveal that the plea taken by the claimant that the deceased had sustained injuries while returning home from his duty was not correct. Relying upon the evidence of the treating physician he said that the deceased was not wearing official uniform. Certain discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 were also highlighted. According to Mr. Nanda as the accident did not arise out of and in course of his employment, the Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant are strongly repudiated by learned counsel for the applicant-respondent. Relying upon the evidence it is submitted that the Commissioner has properly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions arrived at being just and proper this Court may not interfere with the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence once again. Relying upon the evidence it is submitted that the Commissioner has properly appreciated the evidence and the conclusions arrived at being just and proper this Court may not interfere with the same. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence once again. Strictly in accordance with law an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act can be entertained if the Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Director, E.S.I. Corpora¬tion and another v. Francis De Costa and another reported in AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 432 Mr. Nanda Submitted that even if the submissions made on behalf of the claimant are accepted, the al¬leged accident having occurred about 1 km. away from the resi¬dence of the deceased and far away from the place of work, the injuries suffered by the deceased owing to the said accident could not said to have arisen out of and in course of his employ¬ment. 9. This argument cannot be sustained in view of the memo¬randum of settlement dtd. 1.6.83 between the Management of Rourkela Steel Plant and Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha. In consonance with the said settlement the Workmen’s Compensation benefits will be extended to the employees of Rourkela Steel Plant meeting with accident resulting in injury during journey from the residence to place of work and back within one hour of the start or end of their duty hours causing death or permanent/temporary disable¬ment, provided that the accident takes place on the normal route of journey between residence and the place of work. Admittedly in the case at hand the workman was returning from the factory after completion of his ‘C’ shift duty. He got down from Bus near his quarters and while walking to his house met with an accident. He sustained grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to the same. Mr. Nanda tried to take the benefit of the statement of the doctor that the deceased was not in his official uniform, but then there are some materials to reveal that he was taken to the house and then to the Hospital. There is no evidence with regard to what dress the workman was wearing when he got down from the bus. There is no evidence with regard to what dress the workman was wearing when he got down from the bus. There is also no evidence as to whether the workman had changed his dress after his duties and before boarding the Bus or not. In the absence of such materials, the submissions advanced by Mr. Nanda are based more on surmises and conjectures than the actual evidence. The statement of P.W.2, the Tempo driver, who was an independent witness cannot be disbelieved. He has unambig¬uously stated that the workman got down from the Bus and hearing horn of the Tempo, he strutted and fell down in the roadside drain and thereby sustained injuries. He was the person who had taken the injured to the hospital. The fact that the accident took place when the deceased was returning from his shift duty and got down from Bus and was proceeding to his house cannot be disbelieved. In other words the appellant has failed to prove by adducing any cogent evidence, its plea that the accident took place when the deceased was plucking flowers and not on the road on his way home from duty. After assessing the entire evidence, this Court finds that the Commissioner has correctly appreciated the materials on record and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or error apparent on record. The reasoning arrived at are also not perverse. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, taking into consideration the age and income of the deceased, this Court upholds the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, but then sets aside the direction to pay default interest thereon. This Court directs that the compensation amount of Rs.2,63,900/- which is lying in deposit before the Commission¬er along with interest accrued thereon, if any in the meanwhile, be disbursed in favour of the claimant on proper identification. The FAO is accordingly disposed of. FAO disposed of.