AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M.K. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2. None appears for the respondent Nos.3 & 4.
This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 was filed on 23.11.2011 against the judgment dated 25.07.2011
passed by the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, Mangaldai, Assam in Case No.MWC-02/2010.
By the aforesaid judgment, the claimants, who are parents of Mahanta Kumar Barman, were awarded a sum of Rs.4,36,320/- (Rupees Four
Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Three Hundred & Twenty Only) to be paid within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of the order for
disbursement of the claimants. In default, interest @ 12% per annum was directed to be paid on the amount of compensation from the date of the
order to the date of deposit.
The claimants'' case in brief is that their son, Mahanta Kumar Barman was employed as Handyman/ Khalasi by the opposite party No.1 in the
claim petition in his truck bearing registration No.AS-01/AC-0238 on a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- along with daily allowance of Rs.40/- per
day. On 16.04.2010, the vehicle met with an accident at around 3:30 AM when it was proceeding towards Dalgaon to carry betel nut as per the
instructions of the owner of the vehicle. The truck collided with a tree and as a result of the accident, the deceased sustained injuries and he was
taken by the local people, who had gathered there, to Mangaldai Civil Hospital and therefrom to the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital for
better treatment , where the injured succumbed to his injuries on 16.04.2010 itself.
Referring to Section 3 of the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923 (which was earlier known as Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923), Ms.
Mozumdar submits that the deceased did not die in an accident arising out of and in course of his employment and in fact, no accident had taken
place as per the version of DW-1, who had deposed that anticipating an accident, the deceased jumped out of the vehicle as a result of which he
suffered head injuries and that, therefore, the learned Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation fell into error in awarding compensation by the
impugned judgment under appeal.
Mr. M.K. Hussain, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the evidence on record demonstrates that the deceased
died as a result of a vehicular accident while he was traveling in the vehicle as a Handyman in course of his employment and that no substantial
question of law arises in the present appeal.
During the proceeding, 3(three) witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
parties that the father of the deceased, who is the respondent No.1 in the instant appeal, has since expired.
The witnesses examined by the claimants are the father of the deceased as PW-1, mother of the deceased as PW-2 and one Safar Ali as PW-
Safar Ali had stated himself to be a businessman. In the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, it is categorically stated that the truck in question
derailed"" and collided with one tree and as a result of the said accident, their son had sustained grievous injuries and on that day itself, he
succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. It is also deposed that Dalgaon Police Station Case No.207/2010 under Sections 279/304(A) IPC was
registered. PW-1 had also exhibited the Accident Information Report as Exhibit-2. The post-mortem report, which was exhibited as Exhibit-4,
shows that the injured was brought dead to Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, Casualily Department. While cross-examining PW-1 and PW-2,
no suggestion was given that the truck in question had not met with any accident.
PW-3 had deposed that while he was traveling by a bicycle, he had seen that a truck bearing registration No.AS-01/AC-0238 had met with an
accident and some people of the vicinity had also come out and had found the Handyman of the truck lying unconscious and then he was shifted to
Mangaldoi Hospital. In his crossexamination, PW-3, however, had stated that at the relevant point of time at around 3:30 AM, he was travelling
by an Indica vehicle, thereby shifting his stand in the deposition in chief, where he stated that he was going by a bicycle.
DW-1 is an Investigator of the appellant/Company. He stated in his evidence that from the police report, it came to light that when the vehicle
took a right turn, the deceased jumped out from the cabin of the truck. He also stated that the injured had jumped out of the vehicle moments
before the truck had dashed against a tree. However, the police report was not exhibited by the DW-1. From the crossexamination, it appears that
he had not even made any attempt to meet the driver of the vehicle in question. From his evidence also, it is manifest that the vehicle had met with
an accident as it had dashed against a tree. DW-1 was not eye-witness and, therefore, his evidence that the deceased jumped out of the vehicle
moments before the accident had taken place has no evidentiary value. The Accident Information Report (Exhibit-2) also indicates that a case was
registered under Sections 279/304(A) IPC.
Submission of Ms. Mozumdar that the vehicle did not meet with any accident and that death occurred as the deceased jumped out of the
vehicle anticipating an accident, is not borne out at all from the evidence on record. Even if evidence of PW-3 is discarded, the same will not
further the case of the appellant.
No other ground has been canvassed.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that no substantial question of law
is involved in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost.
Registry will send back the lower Court records.