BIBHUTI BHUSAN MUKHERJEE Vs. DINAMANI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the employer under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act calls in question the order dated September 9, 1980, passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Puri, in a claim laid by respondent No. 1.

(2.) ONE Pramod Kumar Mohanty, aged about 22 years, was employed by the appellant, a bus operator, as a cleaner in a stage carriage bus bearing No. ORP 3215 of which he was the owner. The said bus was operating between Puri and Konark and had been duly insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 2 ). On June 4, 1977, Promod was travelling in the said bus and was performing the duties of a cleaner. Immediately following a jerk of the vehicle on the road, the side door of the bus opened and the cleaner was thrown out. He sustained severe injuries, became unconscious and, ultimately, succumbed to the injuries in the afternoon of that day. Claim was laid by respondent No. 1, the widowed mother of the deceased, impleading the employer as also the insurer.

(3.) THE employer did not dispute that the workman was engaged as cleaner at the relevant time, nor was there any dispute that death occurred in the course of employment. It was, however, pleaded that the driver was neither rash nor negligent; the deceased had, without informing the driver to stop the vehicle, opened the door to enable him to spit outside when he fell down. The insurer in a six-paragraphed written statement, without denying any factual averment, took the stand that the claimant had no right to implead the insurer before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and it should be deleted from the dispute.