Orissa High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Manjulata Rout And Ors. on 19 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: (2002)ILLJ422ORI, 2001(II)OLR246
Author: B. Panigrahi
Bench: B. Panigrahi
JUDGMENT B. Panigrahi, J.
1. This appeal has been heard on merits at the admission stage on consent of counsels for both parties. This appeal has been directed against the order/judgment passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Cuttack (in short the "Commissioner") in W.C. Case No. 427-J of 1994, whereby the Commissioner has directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay Rs. 77,500/- as compensation to claimant-respondents 1 to 4 within thirty days from the date of the order.
2. The claimant-respondents claimed to be the dependents of deceased Santosh Kumar Rout, who was employed as a Coolie in the truck bearing registration number OR-04-6395. Said Santosh Kumar Rout was going in the aforesaid truck as Coolie on Daitari- Paradeep Express Highway from Paradeep to Chandikhole. Near Badapalgoda, the said truck met with an accident as it had collided with another truck and due to such accident, Santosh Kumar Rout instantaneously died.
3. The driver Bhaskar Chandra Mallik who has been examined in this case fled away from the place of accident to Chandikhole and parked the truck in front of the Truck Association Office. Respondent No. 5, who is the owner of the truck, did not appear notwithstanding service of notice. The appellant appeared through advocate and contested the case by filing written statement. The claimants examined four witnesses apart from adducing certain documents which were marked as exhibits. The learned Commissioner on appraisal of the evidence produced by the claimants held that deceased Santosh Kumar Rout was employed in the truck as a Coolie at the time of accident basing on the evidence adduced by the driver of the truck in question. Previously there was a first round of litigation between the Insurance Company and the claimants and this Court remitted the matter to the Commissioner as there was no specific observation that the deceased was an employee in the truck at the time of accident. After the matter was remitted back, the claimants had examined the driver of the truck and the driver has testified that the deceased was employed as a Coolie. Though he was cross-examined by the appellant, yet nothing turned out from such cross-examination to discredit his testimony. There has been no rebuttal evidence produced by the Insurance Company to disprove the said fact. In the absence of such material, there can be no other conclusion save and except to hold that Santosh Kumar Rout was employed as a Coolie by the owner of the truck at the time of accident. As regards the age of the deceased, there has been no dispute raised by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in 1993, the wages was not so much as claimed by the claimants and it was only Rs. 25/- per day and calculated at that rate the monthly wages was Rs. 750/-. Assuming that the deceased worked for the entire month, the calculation as noted in the order of the Commissioner appears to be excessive. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents accepted that compensation may be fixed by taking the age of the deceased as 26 years and wages as Rs. 750/- per month. As per the Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 40 per cent of the wages, i.e. Rs. 300/- is to be multiplied by the factor 215.28. Thus the compensation comes to Rs. 64,584/- (i.e. 300 x 215.28) and if a round figure is taken, it comes to Rs. 65,000/-.
5. In the result, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 65,000/- (Sixty five thousand) towards compensation. It is submitted at the Bar that the entire awarded amount of Rs. 77,500/-had been deposited in Misc. Appeal No. 675/1997 disposed of by this Court on November 30, 1998 remanding the claim case for fresh disposal by the Commissioner and the claimants had been allowed to withdraw Rs. 15,000/- out of the said deposit. Thus, the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be disbursed to the claimant-respondents 1 to 4 along with proportionate accrued interest, if any, by way of account payee cheque7pay order which shall be handed over to respondent No. 1 on proper identification. The balance amount along with proportionate accrued interest shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company. Such disbursement shall, however, be made after the appeal period is over.