Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 54
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Ashraf Hussain, Son Of Late Fazal Hussain - Appellant
Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited - Respondent
Misc. Appeal No. 01 of 201
Decided On : 19-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Mohammad Asghar, Advocate
For the Insurance Co. :Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/Owner:Mr. Ashish Abhi, AC to Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate
The Employees’ Compensation Act permits compensation for minors employed in accidents, emphasizing the act's beneficial purpose for workers and their dependents.
Headnote:
(A) Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 - Compensation for minor employees - The court found the deceased was employed as Khalasi and entitled to compensation despite being a minor, as the Act does not prohibit compensation for minors - The claim was dismissed by the trial court on erroneous grounds regarding employment and age. (Paras 10, 12, 13)
(B) Employer-Employee Relationship - The court established that the deceased was employed on the truck at the time of the accident, supported by witness testimony despite the owner's absence. (Paras 8, 9)
(C) Compensation Calculation - The court determined the compensation amount based on the deceased's age and salary, awarding Rs.5,71,350/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was against the dismissal of a compensation claim for the death of Md. Ejaz, who was employed as Khalasi and died in a truck accident. The trial court ruled he was not employed and was a minor.
Findings of Court:
The court found the deceased was indeed employed and entitled to compensation.
Issues: The main issues were whether the deceased was employed at the time of death and whether the appellants were entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Employees’ Compensation Act allows for compensation regardless of the employee's age, emphasizing its beneficial nature for workers and their dependents.
Result: Appeal allowed; compensation awarded.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/owner of the vehicle in question and Mr. Amresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and Award dated 04.10.2016 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-Cum- Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Hazaribagh, in W.C. Case No.44 of 2011 whereby the compensation case filed by the appellants has been rejected.
3. The Trial Court Records has been received.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the claim only on the ground that the deceased Md. Ejaz was said to be minor and erroneous finding has been given that he was not employed with the Truck in question. He submits that the owner has not appeared before the learned court and no evidence has been brought on behalf of the owner, however, the driver was examined as AW-2 and he has supported the case that the deceased was employed as Khalasi in the said vehicle and he was being paid Rs.3500/- per month as salary and Rs.1500/- as Diet Allowance. He by way of referring the evidence of the AW-2 submits that it has been proved that the deceased was employed on the said Truck and erroneously the finding has been given by the learned court and the claim has been dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the owner of the truck/respondent no.2 submits that before the learned trial court, the owner has not appeared. He submits that the employer- employee relationship has not been proved and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order.
6. Mr. Amresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that there is no evidence on the record to suggest that he was employee on the said truck and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the order. He submits that at the time of accident DW-2 was not working with the owner. He submits that restriction is there of employment of the minor in the transportation.
7. In view of above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the two points emerges to be decided in this appeal that is, (i) whether the death of the deceased Md. Ejaz, who was Khalasi took place in course of and out of his employment or not? and (ii) whether the appellants are entitled to any compensation?, if yes, what amount.
8. The F.I.R being Chouparan P.S. Case No.14 of 2010 was registered on 22.02.2010 stating that Md. Ejaz who was the deceased was working as Khalasi in Truck No.JH-02B-0161 and while the articles which was loaded at Sasaram were being carried in the said vehicle due to dash by another vehicle No.NL- 01D-0801 the death of Md. Ejaz has taken. A final form has been submitted on 22.2.2010 disclosing the fact that the accident took place and due to the accident Md. Ejaz has left for his heavenly abode. Thus, it is proved that the accident took while he was in employment as Khalsai on the truck in question. Further, from the trial court records, it transpires that the owner of the vehicle in question has not appeared before the learned court and AW-2 who is Md. Shamsher said to be driver of the vehicle in involved in the accident he has stated in his statement on oath that the deceased Md. Ejaz was Khalasi in truck and they were going to Sasaram and on 22.2.2010 at 4.00 am when the truck reached near Damua Petrol Pump, suddenly a Tailor driven in a very high speed and negligently dashed his truck causing grievous injury to Md. Ejaz, who has succumbed to his injuries and he has also stated that the deceased Khalasi was being paid a sum of Rs.3500/- per month as salary and Rs.1500/- per month as Diet Allowance. In cross-examination, he has also denied the suggestion with regard to non-employment of the deceased on the truck in question. Merely the owner has not appeared and not stated anything before the learne
