MFA No. 18 of 2008. Case: The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sairem Nando Singh and Ors.. Manipur High Court

Case Number:MFA No. 18 of 2008
Party Name:The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Sairem Nando Singh and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: A. Dani, Advocate and For Respondents: S. Jibon, Advocate
Judges:Kh. Nobin Singh, J.
Issue:Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 307, 326, 34, 427; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 147; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 25(1C)A, 30
Judgement Date:January 31, 2017
Court:Manipur High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Kh. Nobin Singh, J.

  1. Heard Shri A. Dani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S. Jibon, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1. None is present for the respondent No. 2.

  2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the award dated 21-08-2007 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Manipur in W.C. Case No. 8 of 2005.

  3. The respondent No. 1 was a workman employed by the respondent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle namely a Tata Bus. In an accident occurred due to blasting of powerful bomb thrown by some unknown persons inside the vehicle which was moving on the National Highway No. 39, the respondent No. 1 sustained injuries for which a case under FIR No. 16(2)05 KPS u/s. 307/326/427/34 IPC and Section 25 (1-C) A. Act had been registered by the Kakching Police Station. On the date of the accident, the respondent No. 1 was 25 years of age and was receiving monthly wages of Rs. 3,500/- per month. When the respondent No. 2 failed to pay the compensation under the provisions of the Act, the respondent No. 1 filed the application before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for payment of compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. In the written statements filed on behalf of the appellant and the respondent No. 2, it is not denied that the respondent was a workman employed by the respondent No. 2. After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the Commissioner inter-alia held that the respondent No. 1 was employed by the respondent No. 2 in connection with the operation of his vehicle and that the accident occurred while the respondent No. 1 was being employed by the respondent No. 2. After examining the evidence on record, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,52,088/- only and not Rs. 5 lakhs as claimed by him. The Commissioner came to the further conclusion that the respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the compensation for the injuries sustained by the respondent No. 1 with simple interest @ 12 per cent per annum and that the appellant is liable to indemnify the respondent No. 2. Accordingly, in terms of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Commissioner passed the award directing the respondent No. 2 to deposit the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,52,088/- on or before 20-10-2007 with simple interest @ 12 per cent per annum from...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL