DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORISSA Vs. NABATI NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DIVISIONAL Manager, orissa Forest Development Corporation ltd. , Angul (C) Division, Angul is the appellant in this appeal filed under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, 'the Act'), which was filed against the order dated 8. 8. 2001 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's compensation-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Dhenkanal), Angul in the W. C. Case No. 14 of 1993 wherein a compensation of Rs. 55,973 was awarded.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: one Dhulia Naik of Kutulusingha village, P. O. Maimura within the limits of thakurgarh Police Station in the district of angul died by the attack of a wild elephant on 27. 2. 1993 at about 3. 30 p. m. The certified copies of the documents, F. I. R. , final report, the challan showing the carrying of the dead body to the hospital and the inquest report of U. D. Case No. 1 of 1993 do substantiate the above fatal blow to the deceased Dhulia Naik by the wild elephant at the above time. At the time of death of the deceased, his age was 26 years. His young widow Nabati is the claimant. She had claimed that her husband died while he was going to bamboo cutting work at bidamara camp where he was so employed by the contractor of the O. F. D. C. It is on that ground a case was projected that death was during the course of employment and, therefore, the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Workmen's compensation Act.

(3.) IN proof of the claim of respondent-claimant, besides her examining as PW 1, she had also examined two co-workers of her husband as PWs 2 and 3. They are karunakar Naik and Narottam Naik. They claimed to have accompanied the deceased while going to cut bamboo on the date of occurrence. PW 1 further contended that on 27. 2. 1993 while her husband was going to attend bamboo cutting work at Bidamara, on the way he was attacked by a wild elephant resulting in the death of her husband at the spot. The learned Assistant labour Commissioner after going through the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 has found that although there was cross-examination at length, nothing adverse to that effect could come out.