LexMAMTA DEVI & ORS. versus THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1133 MAMTA DEVI & ORS. v. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 3904 of 2023) MAY 19, 2023 [J. K. MAHESHWARI AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.] Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – s.20 – Notification issued under – “Contested claim” – When not – Deceased who was employed by the second respondent as truck driver met with a road accident and succumbed to the injuries – Compensation sought by appellants-his wife, son and parents – Deputy Labour Commissioner- cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation awarded Rs.4,31,671/- and with interest @ 6% p.a – Challenged by appellants – High Court held that the award itself was without jurisdiction on the ground that it was a contested matter on account of the written statement filed by the insurer and there being a embargo as per notification issued u/s. 20(1) & (2) – Held: Employer had clearly admitted the averments made in the claim petition filed by the appellants – There was no contest– Insurer of the offending vehicle- first respondent having filed the written statement did not cross examine the appellants and their witnesses – Thus, the claim lodged by them seeking compensation would not partake the character of a “contested claim” as stipulated under the notification issued by the appropriate Govt. u/s.20 (1) and (2), where under clause (a), the presiding officers of the Labour Court were entrusted with adjudication of claims of all contested cases arising under the Act – Therefore, the High Court erred in holding that the claim petition was not maintainable before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner and appellants had to pursue their grievance before the jurisdictional Labour Court – Impugned judgment set aside – Further, unchallenged statement of the wife of the deceased that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, accepted – Appellants entitled to compensation of Rs.6,64,110/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from one month from the date of accident till date of payment excluding the amount already paid/deposited by the first respondent – Compensation – Maxims – Coram-non-judice. [2023] 10 S.C.R. 1133 : 2023 INSC 566 1133 A B C D E F G H 1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 10 S.C.R. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3904 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in MA No. 777 of 2014. Harsh Parashar, Adv. for the Appellants. Ms. Sakshi Mittal, Vishnu Mehra, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARAVIND KUMAR, J. Leave granted. 1. A challenge is laid to the correctness and legality of the judgment dated 01.10.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 777 of 2014 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, whereunder, the appeal filed by the claimants assailing the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, in CWC No. 24 of 2011 allowing the claim petition in part, directing the opposite party No. 1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (first respondent herein) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,31,671/ - has been set aside, on the ground that the dispute raised was a contested case and it is coram-non-judice. 2. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Atil Inam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as also Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, and perused the case papers. 3. Appellants/Claimants are wife, son and parents of late Sri Vakil Choudhary who had been employed by the second respondent as truck driver and had met with a road accident in the night of 21.04.2011 at 10.30 p.m. and as a result of the accidental injuries sustained, succumbed to the same. Hence, seeking compensation on account of death occurring during the course of employment and contending inter alia that he used to earn Rs.6,000/- p.m. as wages from his employer, claim petition was lodged before the Deputy Labour Commissioner- cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. On notice being issued, the insurer of the offending vehicle appeared and filed written statement but, thereafter, the matter was not pursued further by the respondents. On the basis of the material evidence that came to be A B C D E F G H 1135 placed by the claimants, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum- Commissioner for Workmen Compensation adjudicated the claim and awarded a sum of Rs.4,31,671/- and ordered for payment of interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of the accident till the amo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.