MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. KUNTALA JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. has preferred this appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the order dtd. 17th August, 2005 passed by Asst. Labour Commissioner and Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Rourkela in W.C. Case No.3/2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,63,900/ - with a direction that if the amount is not paid within 30 days of the order, the claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28.10.2003 till realisation.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the short facts leading to filing of the aforesaid case are as follows : The Workmens Compensation Case was registered on the basis of an application filed by Kuntala Jena, W/o. Late Kasinath Jena, an employee of Rourkela Steel Plant. It is alleged that the said Kasinath Jena died in an accident arising out of and in course of his employment. It is stated that he was working as an operator in the Sintering Plant of Rourkela Steel Plant. On the fateful day, i.e., on 16th September, 2003 at about 6.30 A.M. after completion of his 'C shift duty he was returning to his Quarters No.A/196 situated at Sector -20, Rourkela. He got down from a Bus near 'D Block of Jhumpudi Market Chowk and was proceeding towards residence by walk, Suddenly a three wheeler Tempo came in front of him. To avoid collision the deceased, it is alleged, took a turn but fell down in the drain existing by the side of the road. He sustained severe injuries on his head, chest and hip and became unconscious. He was taken to the Ispat General Hospital (for short IGH) in a Tempo. He was admitted in that hospital where he remained under treatment as an indoor patient, but unfortunately he succumbed to the injuries on 29th September, 2003. It is alleged that he was receiving more than Rs.4,000/ - per month as his salary and was 54 years at the time of his death. His widow claimed a compensation of Rs.2,78,260/ -.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties two issues were framed by the Commissioner for adjudicating the case. Both the parties adduced evidence, both oral and documentary. The claimant got herself examined as P.W.1 and supported the averments made in the claim petition. She stated that after completing 'C shift duty her husband was returning home by a Bus when the accident took place. She was cross -examined in extenso. In course of examination she had stated that she was not present at the time of accident. After coming to know about the accident and the fact that her husband had been removed to IGH she went to the IGH at about 8.30 A.M. Nothing much could be elicited from her cross -examination to disprove her statement. she had denied the suggestions that the deceased fell down from roof of their quarters and that the injuries were not caused by an accident which occurred while he was returning from Hospital.