NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANYLTD Vs. KAMLESH ALIAS NANGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated April 24, 2008 passed by the concerned Workmen's compensation Commissioner, Agra. The awarded amount is Rs. 2,61,965. The specific point has been taken by the learned counsel appearing in support of the Insurance Company that by virtue of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 21 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called "the Act") no matter shall be processed before or by the Commissioner, other than the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place, without giving notice in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State government concerned. He also relied upon proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of Workmen's compensation (Venue of Proceedings) Rules, 1996. The same set of provision is available there as in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the act. However, in the Rules there is provision of giving notice under From A. We do not find any objection with regard to venue of proceeding in the Court of Commissioner so that there should be notice under Form A. However, since it is a question of law, we have extensively gone through it.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the place of death is mainpuri which comes under the Agra division. If Section 2 (b) is read with Section 20 (2), the definition of Commissioner will be understood. Where more than one commissioner has been appointed for any area, the State Government may, by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business between themselves. Therefore, although the actual venues is Mainpuri where the accident was caused yet being part of Agra division such place can be considered as a part of Agra so far as this Act is concerned. Hence, by virtue of distribution of work the Assistant commissioner sitting at Firozabad being integral part of the Agra Division has rightly taken up the matter. This allocation of business is not in contravention of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, which speaks for notice to the Commissioner having jurisdiction where the accident took place. This provision specifically deals with different commissioners not with regard to different assistant Commissioners under one commissioner when distribution of works will be regulated under the general or special order of the State.

(3.) THEREFORE, we do not find any cogent reason to admit the case on such ground. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has cited judgment of the learned single Judge in Chawla Techno Construction ltd. and Another v. State of U. P, and Others 2006-IV-LLJ (Suppl)-1079 (All-NOC) and it has also been contended that this Division bench also remitted other matters to the workmen's Compensation Commissioner for the purpose of consideration of cause. As the distinguishable feature is available in this case, such ratio cannot be applicable herein. Even in the reported case the jurisdiction of Delhi and allahabad was considered by applying Section 21 of the Act which is different scenario altogether. Therefore, we do not find any genuine cause to interfere with the impugned judgment and order on such issue. In addition to such ground, the learned counsel has also argued that no documentary proof of heirs and legal representative of the deceased was considered by the Commissioner.