Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 162 (UTT)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mathura Devi

2016-04-11

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This order will adjudicate both the above-titled appeals as they have arisen out of the same judgment and award dated 6.3.2009. 2. Having heard learned counsel for all the parties, it transpires that Bus No.URN-9501 was being run in the hilly roads and the conductor Mr. Mahesh Chandra Bhatt @ Hari Dutt Bhatt, who was engaged only for a day, lost his life during the course of employment. 3. Learned counsel on behalf of the New India Assurance Company has argued that, in fact, the regular conductor in the bus was one Mr. Shankar Dutt, as has been deposed by the vehicle owner Navin Chandra Pande in his statement before the authority concerned; Shankar Dutt, without having permission of the vehicle owner, sent the deceased as his substitute on the bus and such accident occurred. So, the deceased being not in the regular service, his dependents are not entitled for any compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’). This argument does not hold any water for the reason that Mr. Pandey (vehicle owner), in paragraph no.7 of his written statement, has admitted that the deceased was engaged by him; it has nowhere been stated that without his permission, he was engaged and replaced by the regular conductor Mr. Shankar Dutt. So, if the deposition has been made by Mr. Pandey against his own admission in the written statement, it hardly has any evidentiary value. That apart, in order to strengthen his standpoint, Mr. Pandey has not examined the driver of the vehicle. Thus, in the above circumstances, the statement made by the vehicle owner is unbelievable. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company has further assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the compensation has been evaluated accepting the age of deceased as ‘34’ years, so revealed by his wife while standing in the witness box before the authority concerned, whereas, in the post-mortem report, his age has been mentioned by the doctor as ‘45’ years. The Court rejects this contention as well for the reason that mentioning the age ‘45’ years by the doctor conducting autopsy is not based on any scientific reason but only on estimation and in comparison to the age, so mentioned by the doctor, the revelations made by the wife of the deceased are more believable. 5. The Court rejects this contention as well for the reason that mentioning the age ‘45’ years by the doctor conducting autopsy is not based on any scientific reason but only on estimation and in comparison to the age, so mentioned by the doctor, the revelations made by the wife of the deceased are more believable. 5. So, on the above grounds, the appeal (AO 170/2009) does not have any force and is liable to be dismissed. 6. On the other hand, deceased’s wife Smt. Mathura Devi has come up before the Court by way of AO No.127/2009, with the contention that the interest only at the rate of eight percent per annum has been awarded by the Authority vide the judgment, under challenge, whereas Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Act adumberates about the payment of simple interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum. This provision has been amended w.e.f. 15.9.1995 and the accident occurred on 19.6.1996. So, on this score alone, I increase the rate of interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum instead of eight percent, as awarded by the Compensation Commissioner. The entire amount, so awarded under the impugned judgment, will earn twelve percent simple interest from the date of its adjudication. After making the necessary calculations, the enhanced amount will be deposited by the New India Assurance Company before the authority concerned, which, in turn, shall be paid to the claimant Smt. Mathura Devi without asking for any security or surety. 7. With the result, the appeal preferred by New India Assurance Company (AO No.170/2009) is dismissed and at the same time, the appeal preferred by Smt. Mathura Devi (AO No.127/2009) stands partly allowed. 8. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with LCR be transmitted to the Authority concerned for compliance of the order, as above.