KALAHANDI EAST ELECTRICAL DIVISION Vs. SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal involves a challenge to the judgment passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Jeypore in W.C. Case No.18 of 2004 on 22.09.2005.

(2.) The undisputed fact involved in this appeal is, while working as Lineman-C under the Appellant and attending to a call for maintenance work of the 11 KV A.B. Switch, a live conductor of 1.6 MVA, (1 Phase), 33/11 KV transformer at Komna was snapped and fell at the right-hand palm of the Respondent. It is also admitted that the live conductor was snapped due to heavy wind pressure, lightening and storm which was beyond the control of a human being. It is also admitted that on sustaining injury the Respondent was shifted to the Hospital by the authority and his all medical expenses are borne by the department. On the premises of such accident a claim petition was filed by the Respondent claiming compensation on the application of provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Appellant herein on appearance filed written statement strongly refuting the claim of the claimant, though did not contest on the subject of master and servant, but the Appellant took stand that since the accident occurred due to heavy wind pressure, lightening and storm, the same is an act of god, therefore the Appellant is not responsible for the unexpected incident. Appellant also attempted to bring evidence through evidence process. Based on the materials available on record, the Authority below after answering the issues in favour of the claimant held the Opposite Parties i.e. the present Appellant liable to pay compensation to meet the loss sustained to the claimant and accordingly, directed the Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,07,094/- before the Commissioner within sixty days and failure of which the Appellant-Opposite Party shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum till the date of deposit.

(3.) Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Appellant taking this Court to the ground no.'C', pleadings of the Opposite Parties recorded in the first and second paragraph of the judgment and further the evidence of the Opposite Parties available at page 4 of the judgment contended that even though there is no denial that the claimant was working at the relevant point of time, but however, for the stand of the Opposite Parties therein that snapping of the live conductor was made by virtue of heavy wind pressure, lightening and storm at the relevant point of time, the Appellant may not be held responsible. It is, however, admitted that the injury involving the workman took place while he was working and not only that there is also admission that the employee after sustaining injury was also shifted to the Hospital and treated by the establishment. It is, in the premises, Mr. Acharya, learned counsel claimed that the accident is caused due to the act of god and the Appellant-Opposite Party has no control over the same. Mr. Acharya, therefore, contended that the award of compensation on the head of the Appellant-Opposite Party becomes bad. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Appellant also made an alternate request that in the worse there should be interference in the interest part and the rate of interest may be reduced from 12%.