UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SASIKALA SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the order dated October 11,1991 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act-Cum-Addl. District Magistrate, Puri (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner at Puri') directing payment of compensation of Rupees 69,411/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accident to the respondents 1 and 2 by the United India Insurance Company Limited (Appellant ).

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the husband of respondent No. 3 was the owner of the truck bearing registration No. OSU 3375 which had been insured with the appellant. Respondents 1 and 2 claiming themselves as the dependents of late Prasanta Kumar Sahoo filed an application claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50, (KX)/- under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, 'the Act') for the death of Prasanta Kumar Sahoo white in employment as a helper in the aforesaid truck. The injuries sustained by the deceased arose out of and in course of his employment as helper, as alleged. The accident resulting in death of the deceased having taken place at Tepurghat under Tapur Pol ice Station in the district of Dharmapuri (Tamil Nadu), the claim application was initially filed before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Tamil Nadu. On the application of respondent No. l for transfer of the case to the Commissioner at Puri, notices were issued to the other parties and thereafter the case was transferred to the Commissioner at Puri. The said Commissioner granted a compensation of Rs. 69,411/-holding that the monthly income of the deceased; was Rs. 800/- and his age was 25 years at the time of the accident. Since the vehicle in question had been validly insured covering the date of the accident, the appellant was directed to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved by such order,; the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) MR. A. K. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the impugned award is vitiated in law because the Commissioner at. Puri had no jurisdiction to pass the award, the accident resulting in death of the deceased having taken place in the State of Tamil Nadu, Mr. B. A. Nayak, the learned counsel for the respondent 1 and 2, on the other hand, supports the. impugned award.