SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Manipur) 57

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J.
The National Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
VERSUS
VoipuKhongsai, s/o AngamKhongsai of SugunuLeisad, P.O.& P.S. Sugunu, District Thoubal, Manipur - Respondent
MFA NO.19 OF 2008
Decided on : 28-04-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A. Deni Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. S. Jibon Singh, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of total disablement under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the standard rate of interest for compensation.

Headnote:

Workmen’s Compensation Act - Appeal against award of compensation - Section 30 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 4, Section 4A, Section 20(3) - The court discussed the definition of workman, the assessment of disablement, and the payment of compensation under the Act.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a second driver, suffered permanent disablement due to a bomb blast while on duty. He claimed compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act from his employer and the insurance company. The employer terminated his employment, stating that compensation could only be given if the insurance company indemnifies the same.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the respondent to be a workman under the Act and concluded that the accident arose during the course of his employment. The court also deemed the compensation claimed as reasonable and held the employer and the insurance company liable to pay the compensation. The court granted an interest of 12% per annum from the date of the accident.

Issues: The issues included the workman status of the respondent, the nature of the accident, the reasonableness of the compensation claimed, the liability of the employer and the insurance company, and the interest rate for compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of total disablement under Section 2(I)(1) of the Act to determine the respondent's entitlement to compensation. The court also upheld the standard rate of 12% per annum for interest on the compensation amount.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to pay the compensation along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident within a period of 2 months.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Heard Mr. A. Deni Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. S. Jibon Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the Act) against the a ward dated 21.08.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Manipur in Claim Case No. 09 of 2005 awarding a sum of Rs. 4,54,511/- (Rupees four lakh fifty four thousand five hundred and eleven) as compensation in favour of the respondent No. 1 with an interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident i.e. 24.02.2005.

3. As found in the record of the Claim Case W.C. No. 09 of 2005 of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Manipur, and as submitted by the ld counsels of the parties the facts and circumstances which led the Commissioner passed the award dated 21.08.2007 in the Claim Case W.C. No. 09 of 2005 are as

The respondent No. 1 (petitioner in Claim Case W.C. No. 09 of 2005) was employed as second driver by one, Shri Ng. Sarat chandra Singh, a permanent resident of Singjamei Chingamakha Meisnam Leikai, who is Respondent No. 2 in this case, for his bus bearing Registration No. MN-01-0756 for a monthly salary of Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees three thousand and five hundred ) only . On 24.02.2015, while the bus was on its way from Moreh to Imphaland reached a place near Sora Junior High School in Thoubal District along National Highway No. 39, an unknown miscreant threw a bomb inside it and the bomb exploded there and then causing injury to the respondent No. 1(petitioner in Claim Case W.C. No. 09 of 2005) and the conductor of the bus. Immediately, after the incident, the respondent No. 1 (petitioner in Claim Case W.C. No. 09 of 2005) was taken to RIMS Hospital at Imphal and he was found to have suffered from the following injuries :

(i) Blunt injury over the right shoulder joint (2 x 2 cm).

(ii) Lacerated wound over the 2 (two) arms and other bodily injuries.

An F.I.R. being No. 16(2)05 KPS u/s 307/326/427/34 IPC - 25(1-C) A. Act was registered by the Kakching Police Station in connection with the said incident.

After being treated in the RIMS hospital at Imphal, the respondent No. 1 (petitioner in Claim Case W.C. No. 09 of 2005) was discharged on 01.03.2015 and the doctor who treated him issued a certificate stating as follows :

“This is to certify that Mr. Vaipu Khongsai aged about 26 years S/o, Angam Khongsai of Sugnu, Manipur is suffering from right upper limb paralysis due to bomb blast injury on 24.02.2015. He is not fit for a driver of heavy vehicles for whole of his life.”

Following the incident and the permanent disablement, he suffered due to the same, he was discharged from his employment by his employer/respondent No. 2. Since he suffered the disability during the course of his employment, the respondent No. 1 (petitioner in Claim Case W.C. No. 09 of 2005) asked his employer/respondent No. 2 (opposite party No. 1 in the Claim Case W.C. No. 09 of 2005) to him for the loss he suffered. But he was told that the compensation claimed by him can only be given if the Insurance Company (the appellant in this case) indemnifies the same. Having no choice, the respondent No. 1(petitioner in Claim Case W.C. No. 09 of 2005) filed a petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Manipur claiming compensation under the Act from both his employer and the Insurance Company (appellant in this case) with whom the former had insurance policy in connection with the bus being policy No. 202000/31/03/6303184.

4. In support of his claim, the respondent No. 1 (petitioner in the Claim Case No.09 of 2005) produced and examined 4 (four) witnesses namely :

(i) Voipu Khongsai, the respondent No. 1 (petitioner in the Claim Case W.C. No. 09 of 2005) himself.

(ii) Shri Naorem Krishnamohon Singh, driver of the bus, registration No. MN 01-0756 i


























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top