Jharkhand High Court
Sangita Devi vs Tilku Prasad Chaurasia S/O Ishwar ... on 13 December, 2022
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1
M.A. No. 271 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.271 of 2013
------
1. Sangita Devi, w/o Late Gupteshwar Bhagat
2. Manik Bhagat (minor) s/o late Gupteshwar Bhagat
3. Satish Bhagat (minor) s/o late Gupteshwar Bhagt Appellant Nos.2 &3 are minors and are being represented through their mother and natural guardian appellant no.1 who has no adverse interest against them.
All resident of Village & P.O.- Dolaicha, P.S.-Lapung, Dist. Ranchi .... .... .... Appellants Versus
1. Tilku Prasad Chaurasia s/o Ishwar Prasad Chaurasia, r/o Village Bano, P.O. & P.S. Bano, Dist. Simdega
2. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Lalji Hirji Road, P.O. GPO, P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi, issuing branch being Doranda Office, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi .... .... .... Respondents
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate : Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in W.C. Case No.9 of 2011 whereby and where under, the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi has awarded a compensation amount of Rs.3,00,942.98 with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the claimant no.1 is the wife and the claimant nos.2 and 3 are minor sons of the 2 M.A. No. 271 of 2013 deceased- Gupteshwar Bhagat who was employed by the opposite party no.1 as a driver in his truck. The monthly wages is Rs.6,500/- and Rs.50/- per day for food.
4. The appellants are the only three dependents and the truck in question was insured with the respondent no.2- insurance company.
5. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation-cum-
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in the absence of any documentary proof of monthly wages paid to the deceased driver computed the compensation taking into account the minimum wages of the driver fixed by the Government in schedule employment of public motor transport which was Rs.2,153.11 per month as per the notification no. 2/MW-2079/2004LE&T1669 dated 10.09.2005 and adding the VDA of Rs.1,115/- computing the monthly wages of the deceased to be Rs.3,268.11. The Commissioner considered the age of the deceased to be 40 years and the relevant factor to be 184.17 and multiplying the factor with 50% of the monthly wages, awarded the total compensation of Rs.3,00,942.98/-.
6. At the time of Admission of the appeal, the following substantial question of law was formulated vide order dated 07.03.2019 :-
"(A) Whether the High Court can look into the documentary evidence in Miscellaneous Appeal even though the same was not brought before the Tribunal, as it is a beneficial legislation?"
7. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel for the appellants 3 M.A. No. 271 of 2013 relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Mahadeo Minz & Ors. vs. The Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in M.A. No.276 of 2013 dated 08.09.2022 and submits that in the case of Jaya Biswal & Ors. vs. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. reported in (2016) 11 SCC 201, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has allowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. It is next submitted by Mr. Ranjan that as no document was filed by the appellant-applicants, hence, the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation ought to have assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,500/- plus food allowance of Rs.50/- per day. It is then submitted by Mr. Ranjan that he has no comment to make, so far as the substantial question of law is concerned. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order be modified by enhancing the compensation.
8. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand defended the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and submits that the facts of the case are different from the facts of the judgment of Mahadeo Minz & Ors. vs. The Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) as well as the facts of Jaya Biswal & Ors. vs. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (supra) as in those cases, no document on the basis of which income of the deceased could have been assessed was filed 4 M.A. No. 271 of 2013 by either of the parties but in this case, documents in shape of the notification of the Government of Jharkhand as well as chart of VDA notified by the Government was placed before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation has assessed the income basing upon the said undisputed documents available in the record. Hence, it is submitted the ratio of Mahadeo Minz & Ors. vs. The Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. (supra) and Jaya Biswal & Ors. vs. Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. It is further submitted by Mr. Jha that this appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is not like regular first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the first proviso of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 envisages that no appeal shall lie against an order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. It is further submitted by Mr. Jha that a procedure has been laid down in law for introducing new documents at appellate stage; which documents could not be produced before the original court- here in this case, being the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. Mr Jha further submits that the check has been laid down in law restricting the filing of documents for the first time in the appellate stage and which is the well-established principle of law to 5 M.A. No. 271 of 2013 ensure that no fake or fraudulent documents are filed in the appellate court for the first time and the other party should get the opportunity of pointing out the veracity and genuineness of such documents. Mr Jha next submits that without adopting such procedure, certainly all and sundry documents cannot be looked into by the appellate court that too behind the back of the other party, on the ground that the legislation concerned under the provision of which the compensation is claimed is a beneficial piece of legislation. It is then submitted by Mr. Jha that the purpose of beneficial piece of legislation is not to give a windfall to the claimant but only to give a just compensation, hence, High Court cannot look into the documentary evidence in Miscellaneous Appeal even though the same was not brought before the Tribunal, on the ground that the legislation concerned in this case- the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is a beneficial piece of legislation unless and until, the procedure for bringing in record the documents sought to be looked into by the High Court is adopted by the party seeking to bring such documents to be looked into by the High Court and the High Court upon such application being made, keeping in view the well-established principle of law in this respect permits and allows such documents to be brought on record. It is next submitted by Mr. Jha that in this case no prayer has been made by the appellants urging upon this Court to look into any specific documentary evidence which was not 6 M.A. No. 271 of 2013 brought before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. Under such circumstances, there is no any relevancy for this Court to look into any document other than the ones available in the Lower Court Record.
9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, so far as the sole substantial question of law is concerned, as rightly submitted by Mr. Jha that there is an established procedure in the Code of Civil Procedure under Order XLI Rule 27 of production of additional evidence in appellate court. If any statute does not specifically bar the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. a procedure akin to the provision of Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure may in a particular case, be applied either in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court or otherwise allowing the claimants to bring in record any document, if such document enables the High Court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. This being a settled principle of law, certainly, the High Court cannot look into all and sundry documentary evidence in miscellaneous appeal even though the same was not brought before the Tribunal only on the ground that the legislation concerned according to the provision of which, the claimed amount is sought, is a beneficial legislation. Thus, the sole substantial question of law is answered in the negative.
10. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of 7 M.A. No. 271 of 2013 the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal.
11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on contest but under the circumstances without any costs.
12. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th December, 2022 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-