MANAGER Vs. KAKALI SARKAR GUHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two short questions arise for consideration in the present case. The first question raised is whether the Appellant-the Insurance Company can be held liable for the payment of compensation to the Respondent No.1-(the Claimant) for the accident that occurred at Mazitar when the insurance policy provides that the location of risk was Gangtok, East Sikkim? The second question is whether the learned Commissioner could have directed the Appellant-Insurance Company to pay the claim amount in view of Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923?

(2.) On 18.06.2015 a First Information Report (FIR) No. 35/2015 was lodged at the Jorethang Police Station stating that the same morning at 00:30 hours the hired vehicle fell down from pressure shaft to power house at Mazitar and the operator (Ranjan Guha) got injured. It was further stated that they brought the operator to the Jorethang Hospital where the Doctor informed them that the operator was already dead.

(3.) A claim petition under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (the Act) was filed on 28.09.2015 by the Claimant i.e. the wife of the deceased operator. It stated that the deceased was employed as an operator/driver of transit mixer (heavy vehicle) bearing No. WB29-7322 which on 18.06.2015 while being driven by the deceased fell down from the pressure shaft to power house at Mazitar, Jorethang, South Sikkim and the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Copies of the FIR as well as the death certificate were also annexed. It was asserted that the deceased was recruited as a driver on 25.05.2015 by Respondent No.3 (the Employer) and the said Company had deputed him with the Respondent No.2. It was asserted that the deceased workman expired in the course of employment. A copy of the appointment letter was also annexed. The Claimant asserted that on her inquiry it was found that the Employer had insured their liability under the Act with the Appellant and therefore the Appellant was also made a party. The Claimant asserted that the deceased was 36 years at the time of his death and a copy of the driving license reflecting the date of birth of the deceased was also annexed. The Claimant further claimed that the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.13,765/- only as evidence by the appointment letter dated 25.05.2015. The Claimant claimed compensation on the above facts without quantifying the amount. *