Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1519 (JHR)

Geeta Devi v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. , B. S. P.

2009-11-30

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
Order Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the letter dated 31.10.2003, issued by the Respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner's claim for Group Insurance in the account of her deceased-husband, Mani Ram Mandal was rejected. 3. The petitioner's husband was employed under the Respondent-B.S.L., as a Technical Staff in the Electrical Department, SMS-l on 11.11.2002 and in course of discharging his duties, he fell down and suffered head injuries as confirmed by the Post-mortem Report. In the opinion of the Doctor, who had conducted the autopsy, the case of death was the head injury, which was ante mortem in nature. As it appears, the Respondent-employer while acknowledging the fact that the deceased-employee had suffered death while discharging his duties, had paid compensation for the premature death. However, the employer going by the statement of the petitioner, as contained in her application, had gained the impression that the deceased had suffered a natural death on account of 'Cardio-Respiratory arrest’. Upon such impression, the employer did not forward the mandatory Form 17 A to the Insurance Company by way of notice of accident. 4. In the counter affidavit of the Respondent No.4, the stand taken is that, since the employer did not forward a notice under Section 17 A, the Respondent No.4 was not under any obligation to pay the Group Insurance amount in the account of the deceased-employee. 5. A copy of the Post-mortem Report has been filed even by the Respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 would acknowledge that as per the contents of the Post-mortem Report, it appears that the cause of death, was due to the Head Injury, which had resulted in 'Cardio-Respiratory arrest' causing death of the employee but argues that such head injury may have been caused on account of fall. This argument is not persuasive. Even as per the statements of the employer, the employee had fallen while discharging his duties and sustained the head injuries, which had resulted in his death. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the employer shall consider the entire issue in proper perspective and on the basis of the Post-mortem Report and forward the requisite notice under Form 17 A to the Insurance Company within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the employer shall consider the entire issue in proper perspective and on the basis of the Post-mortem Report and forward the requisite notice under Form 17 A to the Insurance Company within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such Form 17A, the Respondent-Insurance Company shall within one month thereof, disburse the payment in the account of the deceased-employee under the Group Insurance Policies. 7. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of. 8. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondents.