Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1178 (PAT)

Babi Kuar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

2014-12-01

RAKESH KUMAR

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 /National Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. The present appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen¡¦s Compensation Act, has been preferred on the plea of enhancement of compensation amount. The learned Deputy Labour Commissioner- cum- Commissioner Workmen¡¦s Compensation Act had allowed CWC No. 13 of 2004 by its order dated 16/6/2006 which was filed for claiming compensation in view of death of husband of appellant no. 1. The appellant no. 2 to 4 are children of the deceased. By the said order learned Deputy Labour Commissioner while allowing the case had directed the insurer of tractor no. BR-24-B/2430 and trailer no. B.R.24301 to pay compensation amount of Rs. 197356/- to claimants. It was pleaded before the Deputy Labour Commissioner that husband of appellant no. 1 was employed as driver of the offending vehicle and he died in an accident. Before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the owner of the offending vehicle did not appear. The respondent no. 1 appeared and filed written statement and raised dispute on the point of employment, income as well as manner of death. However, learned Deputy Labour Commissioner, on the basis of age of deceased i.e. 35 years, as per Minimum Wages Act, directed to calculate the compensation amount and directed to pay total compensation amount of Rs. 1,97,356/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants accepts that in compliance with the Deputy Labour Commissioner¡¦s order, total compensation amount has been received by the claimants. However, the appellants have approached this court for enhancement of compensation amount. 4. In filing the appeal two days delay has occurred, and as such, a limitation petition vide I.A. No. 6366 of 2014 has been filed for condoning delay. The reasons assigned in the petition are sufficient to condone delay. Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. At the very outset Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, relying on a single bench judgment of this court reported in 2014 (2) BLJ PHC-2 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State Of Bihar & Ors) submits that Deputy Labour Commissioner¡Vcum- Commissioner was not at all authorized to adjudicate in the present case keeping in view the fact that respondent no. 1/ insurer had raised serious dispute. 1, relying on a single bench judgment of this court reported in 2014 (2) BLJ PHC-2 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State Of Bihar & Ors) submits that Deputy Labour Commissioner¡Vcum- Commissioner was not at all authorized to adjudicate in the present case keeping in view the fact that respondent no. 1/ insurer had raised serious dispute. He submits that once dispute was raised before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, it was mandatory on his part to refer the matter to the Labour Court instead of adjudicating the same. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Of-course, insurance company has not filed any application against the order of Deputy Labour Commissioner, but question of law is not in dispute. Since compensation amount has already been paid to the claimants, in view of the facts and circumstances, the court is not inclined to pass any positive order in favour of the appellants. In view of the fact that alleged accident had occurred in the year 2003 the compensation amount appears to be just and proper. It is not a case for enhancement. The appeal stands dismissed.