LAWS(MPH)-2018-10-60

GENERAL MANAGER Vs. MEERA BAI

Decided On October 11, 2018
GENERAL MANAGER Appellant
V/S
MEERA BAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was admitted on 10.12.2013 without formulating any substantial questions of law and surprisingly the appellant has not framed any substantial question of law in its memorandum of appeal for the purpose of admission of this appeal. The following substantial question of law is framed today only and the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the parties:- "1. Whether the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/ Labour Court, Jabalpur has erred in law in holding that the death of the appellant's husband had occurred in the course of employment ?

(2.) Whether the award passed by the learned Commissioner suffers from misreading and non-reading of the evidence on record and as such the same is perverse ?" 2. The case of the appellant is that Late Kalloo Sonkar who was working as Master Craftsman in the appellant - Ordnance Factory at Khamaria, Jabalpur had died on 26.03.2009 in Anant Hospital Jabalpur during the treatment. After his death, a case for compensation was filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Jabalpur and after the evidence was led by the parties before the learned Labour Commissioner, the application was allowed and a sum of Rs. 3,42,432.00 with interest @ 12% per annum was awarded to the applicant from 24/03/2009.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned award is perverse which can be demonstrated by the appellant from the record of the case itself. The counsel has submitted that in the application for compensation it is stated by the claimant, that on the date of incident i.e. on 24.3.2009 the deceased received grievous injuries in the course of his employment. It is further submitted that no such accident has taken place in the factory and even after the death of the husband of the claimant the postmortem has not been conducted. The counsel has submitted that the claimant has failed to prove that the death was due to an injury which has been caused in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.