Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
The New India Assurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Aslam and others – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. - 1023 of 2008
Decided on : 05-10-2023
Employees’ Compensation Act - Jurisdiction - Notice Requirement - Interpretation of Proviso to Section 21(1)(b)
Fact of the Case:
The claimants, residents of Moradabad, filed a claim petition before the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, Moradabad, seeking compensation for the death of their son in a motor accident in Bihar. The insurers contested the claim, alleging various irregularities and lack of jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Compensation Commissioner, Moradabad, did not issue notice to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred, as required by the proviso to Section 21(1)(b) of the Act. The Court held that the failure to comply with the notice requirement vitiated the award.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Compensation Commissioner, Moradabad, had jurisdiction to process the claim without issuing notice to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred, as mandated by the proviso to Section 21(1)(b) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the proviso to Section 21(1)(b) of the Act imposes a mandatory notice requirement for a non-jurisdictional Compensation Commissioner to assume jurisdiction over a claim. The failure to issue notice as prescribed by the proviso would vitiate the Commissioner's jurisdiction to process and decide the claim.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and award of the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, and remanded the matter for a decision de novo. The Court directed strict adherence to the notice requirement of the proviso to Section 21(1)(b) before processing the claim de novo.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923[‘the Act of 1923’ for short] is directed against the judgment and award of the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, Moradabad (then called the ‘Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner’) dated 02.02.2008, awarding compensation to the claimants for the death of their son, in the sum of 4,33,820/- and Rs.4,33,820/- and other incidental reliefs.
2. This appeal was entertained by a Division Bench of this Court on 21.04.2008, though not formally admitted to hearing. The question that would tentatively be involved was also indicated in the order of the day, though not formulated as such. The appeal was later on admitted to hearing vide order dated 09.12.2019, albeit without framing the question/ questions involved.
3. On 24.02.2022, when the appeal came up, the following substantial question of law was framed :
4. The appeal has been heard on the aforesaid substantial question of law. Learned Counsel for the parties have addressed the Court on the issue, of course, in the background of the facts and evidence giving rise to the claim, very elaborately.
5. The claimants, Mohd. Aslam and Smt. Husn Ara, Aslam’s wife, are the parents of Mohd. Salim alias Raja, said to be the victim of a fatal motor accident, that happened on 07.06.2005 at Begusarai, Bihar. The claimants are residents of Moradabad. They instituted Claim Petition No. 31 of 2007 before the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, Moradabad on 07.06.2007, with allegations that their son, Mohd. Salim alias Raja, was employed as a Cleaner by the owner of Vehicle No. HR 38 J/3735. Sarfaraz Khan was the owner of the vehicle and impleaded as opposite party No. 1 to the claim petition. He shall hereinafter be called ‘the owner’.
6. According to the claimants, their son, Mohd. Salim alias Raja, who shall hereinafter be called ‘the victim’ was carrying a consignment of goods on board Vehicle No. HR 38 J/3735, with Rais Ahmad operating the vehicle as its driver. The victim was carrying the consignment according to the instructions of the owner on board the ill-fated vehicle. The vehicle had to deliver the consignment at a destination in the State of Bihar. The victim mounted the vehicle’s tool box to recover some tools, perhaps, to fix some fault that had occured on way, when he slipped and fell down onto the road, leading to injury to the head and other parts of his body. The driver immediately conveyed the victim the same day i.e. 07.06.2005 to a certain Shivam Nursing Home, managed by Dr. Ram Yatan Singh, situate at Begusarai, Bihar for necessary medical aid and reported the matter to the local police station at Begusarai, Bihar. During the course of treatment by Dr. Ram Yatan Singh, the claimants’ son succumbed to his injuries on the following day i.e. 08.06.2005.
7. The owner would pay the victim salary in the sum of 4,200/- per Rs.4,33,820/- and month, besides a diet allowance. At the time of his demise, the victim was aged 25 years. The victim suffered injuries during the course of employment, in consequence of which, he died. The claimants have been rendered without financial support, inasmuch the victim was the sole breadwinner of the family, whose life has extinguished in consequence of the accident. The claimants find it difficult to sustain themselves and both of them are suffering of diseases. They do not have any other person as their support.
8. The claimants asked the owner to pay compensation, which he did not. They served the owner with a notice under Section 10 of the Act of 1923, but they received nothing towards compensation for the
The main legal point established is that the proviso to Section 21(1)(b) of the Employees’ Compensation Act imposes a mandatory notice requirement for a non-jurisdictional Compensation Commissioner t....
The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act to substantial questions of law only, and the findings of fact made by the Commissioner.
The Commissioner can award higher compensation than sought if justified, and failure to provide notice is inconsequential if the employer was aware of the accident.
The appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and findings of fact by the Commissioner are final unless shown to be perverse.
The court determined that misapplication of territorial jurisdiction constitutes a substantial question of law, warranting appellate review and remand for further proceedings.
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is a social welfare legislation and it must be given a beneficial construction – Matters thereunder are to be adjudicated with due process of law and also with a keen....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
