STATE OF MIZORAM Vs. LALNGAIHSANGI RALTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) .] This is an appeal under Sec. 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (the EC Act) filed by the appellant against the Judgment and Award dtd. 17/10/2017 passed by the Commissioner under the EC Act in WC Case No. 12/2016 whereby, the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.7,50,480.00 to the respondent as compensation for the death of her husband in a vehicular accident along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the accident. Aggrieved with the Judgment and Award, the State appellant is before this Court through the instant appeal.

(3.) The facts of the case in brief is that the husband of the respondent, who was employed with the Power and Electricity Department (P&E Department), Government of Mizoram as Junior Engineer on 2/3/2015 left Lunglei for Aizawl on Office duty. He first went to Hnahthial for repairing some machines and in the evening he and SDO, Hnahthial left for Aizawl to collect materials for Meter Reading and Transmission (MRT) Sub-Division Office. Thereafter, on 4/3/2015, he was on his way back to Lunglei from Aizawl travelling in his Mahindra Jeep B/R No. MZ 02 A-6446 but he did not arrived at Lunglei as was expected. A report was made to the Kulikawn Police Station, Aizawl on 5/3/2015 by his relatives and after a search was conducted by the Police, it was discovered that he met with an accident at Thingkhuang ram, Sialsuk. The vehicle was badly damaged and the deceased was found dead inside the Jeep. As a result, the respondent filed the claim application before the Commissioner under the EC Act claiming compensation for the death of her husband. The appellants contested the claim as opposite party by filing their written statement. The Commissioner framed as many as 4 (four) issues. In support of their claim, the respondent examined 3 (three) witnesses while the appellants examined only one witness. Consequently, the Commissioner, vide his Judgment and Award dtd. 17/10/2017 awarded compensation to the respondent as already mentioned herein above.