Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 32 (PNJ)

New India Assurance Company v. Ranvir Kaur

2012-01-05

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: This appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner, under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 by which the claimants/ respondents have been awarded Rs.4,27,140/- on account of death of Baldev Singh in the course of his employment with respondent No.1. 2. In brief, the claim petition has been filed by the widow, two minor children and parents of Baldev Singh (deceased) who was 25 years of age employed by respondent No.1 as a driver on a monthly salary of Rs.6000/- on the Truck No.PB-29D-9147 which was insured with respondent No.2 (appellant). 3. On 28.3.2009, Baldev Singh (deceased) was going to Calcutta through Bara Banki along-with another Truck bearing No. PB-29-E-9447 owned by respondent No.1. The truck No.PB-29-E-9447 got punctured on the way and both the trucks were stopped on the road. Baldev Singh was helping in changing the tyre when some unidentified persons attacked them with iron rods and caused fatal injuries to Baldev Singh. Post mortem was conducted in the Civil Hospital, Bara Banki and FIR was registered at Police Station Asndra. 4. The claimants served a legal notice dated 10.4.2010 upon respondent No.1 for compensation who denied his liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.2/appellant. 5. The claimants thus filed the claim petition in which they examined Jagdev Singh as AW-1; Tara Singh as AW-2; Ranvir Kaur as AW-3 and produced various documents, whereas respondent No.1 had appeared as RW-1 and respondent No.2 had tendered copy of insurance cover note as Ex. R-1. 6. The learned Commissioner found that the claimants are the legal heirs of Baldev Singh (deceased) and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,27,140/-, out of which 40% was awarded to claimant No.1 (widow) and 15% each to claimant Nos 2 to 5 who are the children and parents of the deceased. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner on the ground that Baldev Singh did not die during the course of his employment. It is submitted that when the occurrence took place, the vehicle in question was not in operation, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the order of the Commissioner on the ground that Baldev Singh did not die during the course of his employment. It is submitted that when the occurrence took place, the vehicle in question was not in operation, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf and others vs. United India Insurance Company and others (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 536. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with his assistance. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any serious dispute about the facts which have been narrated hereinabove. He has only argued that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation because the truck was stationary at the time when it got punctured and deceased Baldev Singh had, even if helping in changing the tyre, suffered injuries at the hands of some gundas and died, which cannot be co-related with the insured vehicle. 10. In the case of Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf and others (Supra), the appeal was filed by two legal representaties of one Basappa Gurappa Hipparagi and Bapusab Nadaf who were the workmen engaged in uploadig maize (foodgrain) from a tractor trailer. When the maize was being unloaded from the tractor to an underground storage bin (hagevu), both the labourers climbed the grocery pit in order to clean it for storing maize and while cleaning, they fell into the grocery pit. They shouted from inside that they were suffocating, a rope was released to them but they did not catch it and died due to asphyxia. 11. The learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation, Bizapur, allowed the claim petition holding the Insurance Company liable but the appeal filed by it before the High Court was allowed and the liability of the Insurance Company was set aside with a direction to the claimants to reover the compensation amount from the employer. The Supreme Court has accepted the reasoning of the High Court that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and death of workmen, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to have any proximate or direct connection with the vehicle. 12. The Supreme Court has accepted the reasoning of the High Court that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and death of workmen, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to have any proximate or direct connection with the vehicle. 12. In the aforesaid case, there is a reference of two other cases, namely Shivaji Dayanu Patil Vs. Vatschala Uttam More 1991 (3) SCC 530 in which there was a collision between a petrol tanker and a truck on a national highway at about 3.00 a.m as a result of which the tanker went off the road and fell on its left side at a distance of 20 ft from the highway. Due to overturning of the tanker, the petrol contained in it leaked out and collected nearby. At about 7.15.a.m, an explosion took place in the tanker causing burn injuries to those assembled near it including the respondent’s son who later succumbed to the injuries. It was held that the tanker was directly involved in the accident and all the workmen were directly connected with the accident. 13. In another case MFA No.1870 of 2005 Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Shekan Bee decided on 24.2.2006, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held the Insurance Company liable wherein the workmen, who were working as loaders, went in the lorry and loaded the lorry with stones and thereafter they were required to unload the same close to the crusher near the quarry along with other loaders. At about 2.30.p.m in the afternoon, the deceased workman got down from the lorry in order to unload the stones along with other loaders and when they opened the lock at the hind portion of the lorry, the entire load of stones in the lorry fell on him, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died on the spot. It was held by the Division Bench that the vehicle was directly involved in the unfortunate accident. 14. In the present case, the deceased was driving the truck when he got down for the purpose of changing the tyre which got punctured. At that time, he was attacked by some unknown persons and had suffered serious injuries resulting into his death. 14. In the present case, the deceased was driving the truck when he got down for the purpose of changing the tyre which got punctured. At that time, he was attacked by some unknown persons and had suffered serious injuries resulting into his death. Hence, in my view, the facts of the case of Mamtaj Bi Bapusab ‘s Case (Supra) are not similar to the facts of the present case and as such the said judgment is not applicable in the present case rather the judgments in the cases of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (Supra) are applicable because in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil (Supra), the vehicle was though not in operation and the explosion took place after a gap of 4/5 hours of the accident causing burn injuries to the persons assembled nearby yet the Supreme Court has found the proximate connection. Similarly, in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (Supra), the vehicle was though stationary but when the hind portion was unlocked, the entire load of stones fell on the labourer due to which he sustained injuries and died the accident was found to be connected with the vehicle. 15. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ------------