LAWS(JHAR)-2014-7-55

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. Vs. SARSWATI DEVI

Decided On July 01, 2014
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. Appellant
V/S
SARSWATI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro against the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro-cum-Ex-Officio Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in W.C. Case No. 9 of 2005 whereby the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 2,49,400/- to respondent Sarswati Devi, widow of late Brij Mohan Choubey in lieu of the death of her husband which occurred in course of his employment. The facts, in brief, is that Brij Mohan Choubey was an employee of appellant/company having ex-operative staff No. 255639 and he met with an accident in the company on 6.6.2003 and sustained head injury. Brij Mohan Choubey was admitted to Bokaro General Hospital on 6.6.2003 after having that injury. He was under treatment for about four days and discharged on 10.6.2003. It is disclosed that again on 4.7.2003 he went to Bokaro General Hospital with a complain that he is having cervical problem besides weakness in the limbs. He was treated in the hospital and later referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. Brij Mohan Choubey remained under treatment in AIMS from 7.8.2003 to 22.8.2003. On 29.8.2003 Niraj Choubey took his father Brij Mohan Choubey to Bokaro General Hospital but the doctor had observed that Birj Mohan Choubey was brought dead in the hospital. Thereafter post-mortem on the dead body of Brij Mohan Choubey was done on 30.8.2003.

(2.) The petitioner, who happens to be widow of late Brij Mohan Choubey, filed an application for grant of compensation against death of her husband before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bokaro and the application was registered as W.C. Case No. 09/2005. The appellant/opposite party was served with a notice after which they appeared and contested the claim.

(3.) The applicant/respondent adduced evidence and proved documents such as medical certificate etc. in support of her claim whereas the appellant/opposite party has also adduced evidence and proved documents in order to challenge the claim of the applicant/respondent.