UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAMILABEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by the appellant herein, original opponent No. 2, United India Insurance Company Limited, under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short), challenging the judgement and order passed by the learned Ex-Officio Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Bharuch dated 7th December, 1996 passed in Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Application No. 31 of 1993, directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 80,400/- to respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein, original claimants, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application, being the amount of compensation on the death of the deceased workman Rasikkumar Jagannath Joshi.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the deceased Rasikkumar Jagannath died while on duty and therefore, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein, original claimants, submitted an application for compensation under the Act, being Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Application No. 31 of 1993, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,20,600/- with 50% penalty and interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the accident. The application was opposed by the appellant and opponent No. 1-respondent No. 4 herein. It was the contention on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the deceased has not died due to the injuries caused while he was on duty and there was no nexus of death with the injury caused. The respondent No. 1 " Ramilaben Rasikkumar Joshi, widow of the deceased, came to be examined at Exh. 20; one Dr. Jayesh Manilal Suthar also came to be examined on behalf of the original applicant at Exh. 30; the original owner came to be examined at Exh. 38; and, one Mahendra Nagindas Shah, Divisional Manager (In-charge) came to be examined on behalf of the appellant at Exh. 44. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner partly allowed the application by directing the original opponent No. 1 - owner to pay an amount of Rs. 40,200/- towards penalty and further directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 80,400/- by way of compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Bharuch dated 7th December, 1996 in Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Application No. 31 of 1986, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Act.

(3.) SHRI Vibhuti Nanavati, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, has vehemently submitted that the deceased Rasikkumar Joshi was the nephew of the owner of the tractor in question and was not employed by the owner- insured of the tractor. He submitted that the deceased was having the field adjacent to the fields of the owner " insured of the tractor and it is alleged that the accident took place while the deceased was driving the tractor. It is submitted by him that the claimants have not produced any medical papers to support the theory of accident and injury sustained by the deceased, the hospital has not registered the case as medico-legal case and there was no FIR, panchnama and post mortem report to support the theory of the accident and injuries sustained therein. It is submitted that the piece of medical paper, which was sought to be produced, did not whisper about the injuries sustained by the deceased on account of the alleged accident as pleaded. It is submitted that the claimants have not adduced any evidence on record. Under the circumstances, the case of death and nexus with employment is not proved by the claimants and therefore, the claim petition is required to be dismissed. It is also further submitted by Shri Nanavati that even otherwise, appropriate rate of interest would be 6% as the accident took place in the year 1990 i. e. prior to the date of the amendment of Section 4a of the Act and under the old Act, and therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Valsala K. and Anr. , reported in (1999) 8 SCC 254, the judgement and order passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is required to be modified to that extent as the learned Commissioner has awarded the interest at the rate of 12% per annum.