LAWS(J&K)-2024-4-38

UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUBASH CHANDER

Decided On April 02, 2024
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
SUBASH CHANDER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against an award dtd. 29/2/2016, passed by the Court of Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner) Jammu, (hereinafter referred to as 'ALC'), vide which the claimant- respondent No.1, has been held entitled to a compensation of Rs.1, 77840.00 and Rs.298712.00 as interest for delayed payment and while respondent No.2 has been directed to pay an amount of Rs.2.00 lacs to the claimant/respondent No.1, in terms of the Insurance Policy, appellant has been fastened with the liability to deposit the balance amount of Rs.2.76552 with ALC within 30 days of the passing of award failing which same is to recovered as arrears of land revenue by invoking Sec. 31 of the Employees Compensation Act (for short "the Compensation Act').

(2.) Shorn of verbosity, relevant facts of the case are that respondent No.1 came to be engaged as a Casual Employee by the Commandant, 60 Battalion B.S.F - respondent No.4 on the wages of Rs.100.00 per day, for border fencing and flood lighting work near own post Tube Well-5, B.O.P Abdullian, EX-60 Bn/B.S.F on 23/2/2023. While he was performing his duties, he met with an accident of mine blast injury with crush injury left foot. He was evacuated to Government Medical College, Jammu, and Syme's Amputation was done on 23/2/2003. Respondent No.1 preferred a claim petition under the Compensation Act.

(3.) The claim petition was resisted by the appellants primarily on the ground that respondent No.1 sustained injuries in the mine blast due to his own negligence, carelessness and disobedience, since the claimant along with other civil labourers were strictly instructed to follow the cemented Pacca Path and to keep away from the Mine field on the border side, but the claimant/respondent No.1 disobeyed the instructions and exposed himself to the injury. However, it was contended by the appellants that since they had taken the insurance cover, therefore respondent No.2- Insurance Company was liable to indemnify and pay the amount of compensation.