Back
2021 Supreme(Ori) 329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Biswanath Rath, J.
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Raghunath Behera & Anr. - Respondents
F.A.O. (First Appeal From Order) No. 197 of 2012
Decided On : 12-02-2021
R.C. Sahoo, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to assess loss of earning capacity and adjust compensation amounts based on pragmatic considerations and the claimant's circumstances.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation - Insurance - W.C. Act, 1923 - [WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION] - [WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, 1923, Sections 3, 4, 10A, 10B, 10E, 10F] - The court discussed the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and its relevant sections in determining the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the employer for the compensation claim. The court also considered the evidence of the claimant's injuries and the assessment of loss of earning capacity in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, a helper in a truck, sustained multiple injuries in an accident and claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The insurance company disputed the claim, leading to a trial where the Commissioner found the accident to be work-related and directed the insurance company to pay compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the accident's work-related nature and the insurance policy's coverage. It noted the claimant's sustained injuries and the medical evidence supporting a 40% disability. The court, however, found the assessment of 100% loss of earning capacity to be mechanical and reduced the compensation amount by 20% due to the claimant's long suffering and pragmatic considerations.
Issues: The issues involved whether the claimant was a 'workman' under the W.C. Act, whether the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, the amount of compensation due, and the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the work-related nature of the accident, the insurance policy coverage, the assessment of the claimant's injuries and loss of earning capacity, and pragmatic considerations for reducing the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the compensation amount to Rs.2,39,106 and directed its release to the claimant, considering his long suffering and the pragmatic view. The balance amount was to be released to the insurance company with accrued interest. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Biswanath Rath, J. - This is an Appeal at the instance of Insurance Company as against the judgment passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Angul involving W.C. Case No.52/2007.
2. Factual background involving the case is that the claimant being the victim put up a claim application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Angul submitting that he was working as a Helper under Respondent No.2, Opposite Party No.1 therein in his Truck bearing Regn. No.OR-19-C-9354 having a National Permit. It is stated, on 8.8.2007 at about 4.30 A.M., while the Helper, Raghunath Behera along with the Driver of the Truck were proceeding on N.H.-4 to their destination near Balapur of Maharastra to their destination near Balapur of Maharastra, when the said Truck was about to over come one parked Truck bearing Regin. No.CG-04-J-8363, suddenly another Bus came from the front side and to avoid head head on collusion, the Driver turned the Truck to its left side, as a result the Truck dashed on the backside of the parked Truck causing Raghunath Behera, the Applicant sustaining multiple injuries on several parts of the body. After the accident the injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Ankola of Maharastra and after two days of treatment there, he returned to Angul where he was treated in the District Hospital, Angul. It is claimed that due to such accident, the injured sustained fracture injuries on his left leg below the knee and lost his index finger and phalanx of both the hands and sustained bleeding injuries on several parts of his body. The Claimant claimed that for such accident, he became permanent disabled at 100%. The Claimant also claimed his age was 18 years at the relevant point of time and further claimed his wages to be Rs.2200/- per month. Thus the Claimant made a claim of Rs.2,98,822/- along with other benefits as provided in the Statute.
3. Contesting the case, the O.P.-Owner entered appearance but did not file any written statement. However, the Insurance, O.P.2 appeared and filed Written Statement disputing the entire claim application thereby disowning its liability.
4. Based on rival contentions of the parties, the Authority Below framed the following Issues :-
"a) Whether Raghunath Behera was a 'workman' within the meaning of the W.C. Act, 1923 ?
b) Whether he met with an accident arising out of and in course of his employment ?
c) Whether the amount of compensation claimed is due or any part of that amount ?
d) Whether O.Ps. are liable to pay such compensation as is due ? If so, by whom payable ?"
5. Entering into trial, the Claimant also examined witnesses thereby attempting to establish the injury he suffered involving a Truck having the policy coverage through Policy No.034001/31/07/01/00000075 valid from 28.4.2007 till 27.4.2008 issued by O.P.2. The Insurance Company even though resisted the claim but however did not lead any evidence in its defence. Answering the issue, the Commissioner ultimately finding the accident arising in course and arising out of employment finally shifting the responsibility on O.P.2 for there being a valid Insurance Policy, directed O.P.2 to indemnify O.P.1 and consequently, directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,98,822/- towards compensation within thirty days of the judgment, failing which there was also direction to attract other benefits provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
6. Sri R.C.Sahoo, learned counsel for the Appellant though not disputing the accident involving the applicant in course and arising out of employment and also the coverage the accident through Insurance Policy No.034001/31/07/01/00000075 valid from 28.4.2007 till 27.4.2008, however contended that the quantum involving the compensation on the premises that in presence of medical supporting establishing 40% of disability, there is no material available with the Commissioner to come to conclusion that there is loss of
