ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. AFSARI BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurance company being aggrieved by the award dated January 23, 1995, passed in claim case No. 66 of 1992 (workmen's compensation) by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Jabalpur, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that the deceased, according to the allegations of the claimants, was employed as a driver by Respondent No. 4 on his truck MUJ 2092. In the course of the employment when the driver was plying the truck, it met with an accident at Hinganghat, Wardha, Nagpur. The claimants picking up the territorial jurisdiction of Wardha Court, filed an application before the said Court on October 15, 1992. On the very same day, Respondent No. 4 employer also made his appearance and consented to transfer of the case from Wardha (Maharashtra) to Jabalpur (M. P. ). After the case was transferred, the insurance company was joined as a party, it appeared and apart from the other defence also submitted that as the transfer under Section 21 (2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act was contrary to law, Jabalpur Court would have no jurisdiction. It had also raised various defences like collusion between the employer and the claimants, non-production of the service records and licence of the driver. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, learned Commissioner overruled the objections regardingthe jurisdiction and came to the conclusion that as the case has been filed in his Court with the transfer order passed by Wardha Court, it would have jurisdiction. Overruling the other objections it awarded a sum of Rs. 82,380/- to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the said award, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) MR. N. S. Ruprah, counsel for the appellant, contended that the very language of Section 21 (2), second proviso, if it is read in its true spirit and proper perspective, would not leave any doubt that a case can be transferred within the State and beyond the State but before the interstate, transfer sanction of the State Government to which the case is sought to be transferred is necessary and the parties to the proceedings must also record their agreement for transfer of the case. He submits that in absence of sanction of the State Government and the consent of all concerned, the transfer itself was void and would not clothe the Jabalpur Court with the jurisdiction. Mr. N. Chouhan, on the other hand, submitted that the Act is benevolent legislation and its spirit should not be permitted to be defeated by raising such technical objections. He also submitted that the claimants, the owner (employer) and the insurance company all are from Jabalpur and, therefore, if under the compelling circumstances the case was transferred from Wardha to Jabalpur, no fault can be found with it. Placing reliance on Ramat Massey v. Arvind Construction Co. (P) Ltd. , 1989 ACJ 724 (Delhi), it was contended that even if the death is outside the jurisdiction, then too the Commissioner may have jurisdiction.