The United INDIA Insurance Company Limited vs. Bhonde Manihar

Facts

The United India Insurance Company Limited (appellant) assailed an order dated August 2, 2010, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The order in W.C.No.261 of 2007 awarded compensation of Rs.3,33,219/- with 12% interest per annum to the dependants of the deceased, Saleem Bhole Maniyar, who was working as a welder. The deceased allegedly died on April 16, 2006, when a speeding train hit him while he was attending to welding work. The appellant, as the insurer, denied liability, contending the death was not in the course of employment and was possibly suicide. The Commissioner found the opposite parties, including the appellant, jointly and severally liable. The respondents (dependants) were not represented before the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is the final authority on facts under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Act is restricted to substantial questions of law, and the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence to record its own findings on facts, such as the cause of death. The Court found that the Commissioner's conclusion was based on available evidence. Regarding the alleged suicide, the Court noted that the appellant's witness (RW.1) admitted in cross-examination that nothing was mentioned about suicide and that their investigator did not obtain conclusive proof. Furthermore, Ex.R-5, a letter from opposite party No.2, filed by the appellant itself, indicated that the accident occurred while the deceased was working on a railway line and was hit by a moving train, thus confirming the death occurred in the course of employment. Ex.A-5, a copy of the attendance sheet, also supported this. The Court found no merit in the contention regarding the rate of interest, citing Supreme Court decisions that support awarding 12% interest from the date of accident, whereas here it was awarded only after 30 days of the order in case of default. Therefore, no substantial question of law was made out by the appellant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in holding the appellant liable to pay compensation when the death of the deceased was not out of and in the course of employment? (Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923) 2. Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in considering the respondents as dependants within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? 3. Whether the order of the Commissioner is sustainable, which was passed relying on an alleged document (Ex.R-8) that did not appear in the appendix of evidence nor was spoken to by its author? 4. Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in awarding interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident in default of depositing the awarded amount within 30 days from the date of the order? Contentions of the Appellant (United India Insurance Company Limited): The appellant argued that there was no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and opposite parties 1 & 2, thus absolving the appellant of liability. They also contended that the death was not in the course of employment but was suicide, and the rate of interest awarded at 12% per annum was excessive. They further challenged the reliance on Ex.R-8. Contentions of the Respondents (Dependants): The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents' side before the High Court.