Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 15192
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH
Smt. Geeta Devi – Appellant
Versus
Factory Manager – Respondent
MA 5257/2018
Ashok Kumar Gupta,
The claimant must establish a causal link between the workplace accident and the subsequent death of the worker to be eligible for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 30, 22 - The court upheld the dismissal of the compensation claim, finding that the claimant failed to establish a causal link between the 2008 workplace accident and the 2014 death of the deceased worker. The court found inconsistencies in the claimant's evidence and lack of continuous medical treatment records to support the claim.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 for compensation of Rs.9,23,940/- due to the death of Satish Sen on 15.11.2014 from injuries sustained in a workplace accident on 23.4.2008. The trial court dismissed the application, and the claimants appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the dismissal of the compensation claim, finding that the claimant failed to establish a causal link between the 2008 workplace accident and the 2014 death of the deceased worker. The court found inconsistencies in the claimant's evidence and lack of continuous medical treatment records to support the claim.
Issues: Whether the labor court rightly exercised its power under the Workmen's Compensation Act and its decision was not perverse.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the claimant's evidence was inconsistent and lacked continuous medical treatment records to support the claim that the 2008 workplace accident caused the 2014 death of the deceased worker. Therefore, the court concluded that the labor court's decision to dismiss the compensation claim was not perverse.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2018 passed by learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Satna in Case No. 15 of 2015 WC Fatal (Smt. Geeta Devi and others Vs. Manager, Prism Cement Factory Ltd., Satna and others).
2. In short the claimants have filed an application under Order 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 for a compensation of Rs.9,23,940/- alongwith penal rate of interest on account of death of Satish Sen on 15.11.2014 on account of injuries incurred by him on 23.4.2008 during employment. The trial court dismissed the application.
3.The appeal was admitted on 6.3.2024 on following substantiate question of law :-
- "Whether the learned Labour Court rightly exercised the power of the Workman Compensation Act, hence perverse?"
4 . The ground of appeal was that the tribunal did not consider the pleadings and evidence that on account of accident dated 23.4.2008 in right leg of the deceased, a steel rod was implanted after operation. Thereafter, he was cured and again started going to factory and in the year 2018, he developed infection.
5. It is further submitted that the findings of Court that he fell down from house top was wrong and finding that he was not employed in the factory in the year 2014, some days before accident when he expired is also wrong.
6. Therefore, prayer is made to grant compensation as mentioned in Para- 3 (1-3) prayer clause of the appeal.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that in the tribunal in support of the claim application, Geeta Devi has filed an affidavit under Order 18, Rule 4 of CPC and his witness no.2,
Raghunandan Yadav has also filed his affidavit under Order 18, Rule 4 of CPC. As applicant's witness no.3, Dr. K.C. Koshta, Senior Medical Officer, Metro Hospital, Jabalpur was examined and Ex.P-6 to P-139 documents have been exhibited.
8. On the other side, for non applicant nos. 1 and 2 have been examined, who has stated in his affidavit that deceased fell from house on 6.4.2014, while he was putting tiles on his house. Non-applicant witness no. 2- Sanjay Prajapati has also stated the same fact in his affidavit. Supervisor of the Prism Cement Factory, Anjan Pandey has filed an affidavit that after 04.11.2014, the deceased did not report for work in the factory, therefore, no case is made out for grant of compensation.
9. The applicant Smt. Geeta Devi has exhibited 178 documents in all out of which x-ray plate are Ex. P-1 to Ex.P-5 and medical certificate are Ex. P-140 to P-178.
10. During the course of cross-examination, applicant -Geeta Devi has very categorically admitted that her husband was in the employment of non applicant no. 2- Contractor. Regarding treatment of her late husband, she has made contradictory statement in Para-7 at one place, she has stated that her husband got treated at the expenses of Prism Cement Factory but later she has changed her version and stated that she herself incurred the medical expenses of treatment. She further stated in Para 7 :-
- " ;g lgh gS fd bykt ds i'pkr~ mudh pksVsa Bhd yks x;h vkSj oks dk;Z ij tkus yxsA "Lor% dgk fd muds iSj es jkM iMh FkhA^ Meaning thereby that her husband was cured, although as per her version steel rod was inserted in his leg as part of the treatment/operation/surgery.
11. In para-9, she has further admitted that she filed only x-ray plate and no ex-ray report regarding Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. 12. In para-13, she has admitted that Ex.P-140 to Ex.P-178 documents filed by her relates to the period from 24.4.2008 to 2009 and on 6.11.2014, her husband did not meet with an accident, only there was some pain. Therefore, looking to the statement of the wife of the deceased, Geeta Devi, therefore is no continuity of treatment from year 2009 to 2014. Therefore, there is no possibility for accident of the year 2008 and death in the year 2014
