Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
National Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Abhay Ram and Others - Respondent
C.M. Nos. 20370, 20371-CII of 2015 and F.A.O. No. 6497 of 2015 (O and M)
Decided On : 28-09-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :D.P. Gupta, Advocate
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, regarding the maintainability of claim applications, dependency of claimants, and evidence of employment.
Headnote:
Employee's Compensation Act - Challenge to order under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 10, Section 2(d)(i) & (iii) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, which sets a time limit for maintaining a claim application, and Section 2(d)(i) & (iii) which defines 'dependent' for the purpose of compensation. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision to dismiss the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal sought to challenge an order under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, regarding the acceptance of a claim application for compensation by the parents of a deceased truck driver.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claim application was maintainable despite a previous dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, and that the claimants were dependents of the deceased. The court also found evidence supporting the deceased's employment as a driver, and concluded that the Commissioner's award did not suffer from any illegality.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the claim application, the dependency of the claimants, and the evidence of the deceased's employment as a driver.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claim application was maintainable, the claimants were dependents, and there was evidence of the deceased's employment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
C.M. No. 20370-CII of 2015
1. Prayer in this application id for condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the Administrative Officer, National Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh, the same is allowed. Delay of 120 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
FAO No. 6497 of 2015
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Commissioner under The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, Jind, whereby the claim application preferred by the parents of the deceased Rajesh Kumar, Truck Driver, has been accepted and total compensation amounting to Rs. 9,10,835/- including interest and expenses has been ordered to be deposited within 60 days from the date of the order i.e. 24.02.2015, failing which the respondent No. 2 (appellant herein) has been held liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the order till the date of actual payment.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claim application was not maintainable as the same had been filed after more than two years from the date of death of Rajesh Kumar deceased. He asserts that as per Section 10 of The Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 1923 Act'), the petition could not have been maintained beyond a period of two years and there is no application moved by the respondents for condoning the delay. That apart, he asserts that there is no evidence on record except for the bald statement of the respondents that they were dependent upon the deceased and further, there is no evidence on record that he was actually employed as a Driver with respondent No. 3 (herein). He, thus, contends that the impugned order cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and with his assistance, have gone through the impugned order as also the pleadings and the evidence brought on record, which is available with him.
5. A perusal of the application and the evidence would show that earlier the claim application under Section 22 of the 1923 Act being case No. 40 WC/2003 was preferred by the respondents-claimants in the year 2003 itself before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Kaithal, which was dismissed on the ground that the Court did not have jurisdiction to try and decide the claim and it was not maintainable before that Court. The said order is dated 05.12.2005 (Ex. R-I). This clearly would indicate that the Commissioner, Kaithal had not accepted the claim application on the ground that he did not have the jurisdiction to decide the same as the respondents-claimants were residents of Jind and had preferred the application in District Kaithal. The assertion of the counsel for the appellant, thus, that the claim application has been filed after a period of two years cannot be accepted as it is thereafter that the present claim application has been filed before the Commissioner, Jind. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, has dealt with this aspect and in the opinion of this Court rightly so keeping in view the fact that they had earlier approached by way of an application under Section 22 of the 1923 Act, which has not been entertained because the Commissioner, Kaithal, did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same. The assertion of the counsel for the appellant, in this regard, that the claim application is barred under Section 10 of the 1923 Act, thus cannot be sustained.
6. The next contention, which has been raised by the counsel for the appellant, that in the pleadings, it has not been asserted that the respondents were dependents upon the deceased and, therefore, the requirement of Section 2(d)(i) & (iii) of the 1923 Act, which defines 'dependent', is not fulfilled and, therefore, no compensation could have been awarded to them.
7. This contention again cannot be accepted as in th
