Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 220 (MP)

Oriental Insurance Co. v. Abhilasha

2011-02-15

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2011
ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal is preferred on behalf of the Appellant/insurer under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act') being aggrieved by the order/award dated 26-5-2010 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case No. 210/04/Fatal awarding the claim of Respondent No. 1 regarding death of her son Akhilesh, aged 18 years in the accident while discharging the duty under the employment of Respondent No. 2 on his bus bearing Registration No. MP 20-G-2521 for the sum of Rs. 3,84,846/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on such sum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 23-7-2004. 2. The short facts of the case necessary to adjudicate the question of admission are that Respondent No. 1 herein filed the claim petition before the subordinate tribunal contending that her son Akhilesh, aged 18 years, was working as conductor/helper under the employment of Respondent No. 2 on his bus bearing' Registration No. MP20-G-2521, insured with the Appellant. As per further averments, on 27-5-2004, said Akhilesh was discharging his duty under the employment of Respondent No. 2 between Lakhnadon and Ghansor. On the way, due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid bus, the same turned turtle, resultantly, said Akhilesh sustained the injuries and succumbed to it on the spot. Subsequent to it when the amount of compensation was not paid by the Respondent No. 2 as well as by the Appellant then this petition is preferred by Respondent No. 1 for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- and also the interest on it. 3. In spite service of the notice, Respondent No. 2 the registered owner of the bus was proceeded ex parte before the tribunal. 4. In reply of the Appellant, by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that the deceased was neither employed on the aforesaid bus by the Respondent No. 2 nor at the time of the accident he was discharging any duty on behalf of such Respondent. Respondent No. 1 is residing separately from her husband and also got married with some Gamulal Patwari for which some litigation is also going on before some authority and, in such premises, Respondent No. 1 did not have any right or authority to file the impugned claim petition for compensation. Respondent No. 1 is residing separately from her husband and also got married with some Gamulal Patwari for which some litigation is also going on before some authority and, in such premises, Respondent No. 1 did not have any right or authority to file the impugned claim petition for compensation. It is also stated that the deceased being minor person, it could not be deemed that Respondent No. 1 was dependent on him. The averments regarding salary of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month is also disputed. With these averments, prayer for dismissal of the claim is made. 5. After framing the issues and recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same, by allowing the claim of Respondent No. 1, the same was awarded by the tribunal for the aforesaid sum with interest, on which, the Appellant/insurer has come to this Court with this appeal challenging the part of interest awarded by the tribunal from the date of filing the claim petition instead the date of passing the impugned order. 6. Appellant's counsel after referring the pleadings, evidence and the exhibited documents from the record and also by placing his reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and Anr.: (2007)2 SCC 349 , argued that in the available circumstances, in view of the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court, the subordinate tribunal has committed error in awarding the interest on the awarded sum from the date of filing the claim petition. In fact, the tribunal ought to have awarded the interest only from the date of passing the impugned award till realization of the same. With these submissions he prayed for admission and allowing this appeal accordingly. 7. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view his argument, I have carefully gone through the record of the tribunal as well as the aforesaid cited case. It is apparent fact that the aforesaid cited case has not been decided by the Apex Court taking into consideration the death of the concerning employee while discharging the duty in some motor vehicle as conductor/helper. So, on account of the facts, such cited case is distinguishable from the present case and, therefore, the same is not helping to the Appellant in the present matter. So, on account of the facts, such cited case is distinguishable from the present case and, therefore, the same is not helping to the Appellant in the present matter. Although, this Court did not have any dispute regarding the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case but the same is applicable to such employee who died and sustained the injuries while discharging his duty under the employment of the employee inside some working place, industry or shop and not in the motor vehicle. In such premises, in the available circumstances of the case at hand, in view of the provision of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was also available to the Respondent No. 1 for filing the claim before the appropriate tribunal, I am of the view that the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case could not be applied to the present matter. 8. On the other hand in the matter of Kamla Chaturvedi v. National Insurance Company and Ors. 2009(2) MPLJ 542, the Apex Court while considering the matter of an employee who sustained some disability while discharging his duty under the employment of the employer on some motor vehicle, was held to be entitled for interest from the date when one month expired after the alleged accident and the compensation was not paid or deposited by the employer or the insurance company and, in such premises, by saddling the liability to pay such interest against the insurer, the aforesaid judgment was passed by the Apex Court and, in the available circumstances, in the case at hand, such principle is applicable. 9. Subsequently, on arising the occasion before this Court, following the principle of the case Kamla Chaturvedi (supra), this Court has also answered the question in the matter of Smt. Rehana Bi and Anr. v. Mali Kailash Ram and Anr. 2011 (1) T.A.C 65 (MP) holding that the amount of compensation and interest thereon ' 7.5 percent shall be payable by the Insurance Company from the date of filing the application till its decision with further direction that after one month from the date of decision the interest ' 12 percent per annum shall be payable as per Section 4-A of the Act. 10. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, on examining the case at hand, I have not found any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order requiring any interference or consideration at the stage of the appeal and, in such premises, this appeal being devoid of any merit, even for admission, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.