The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Shiv Murat Yadav and Another

Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 589 of 2003 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Shiv Murat Yadav And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kuldip Shanker Amist Counsel for Respondent :- U.S. Misra,Som Dutt Pandey Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard Shri Kuldip Shanker Amist, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Som Dutt Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶2The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., challenging the award dted 06.01.2003 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Azamgarh, in W.C. Case No.39 of 2002 (Shiv Murat Vs. Lautoo Ram and another), Police Station-Tarva, District-Azamgarh.

¶3Challenging the award learned counsel for the applicant has contended that admittedly the deceased while repairing the belt of the Thresher attached with the tractor suffered injuries which resulted in the amputation of his right hand and, therefore, it is contended that the injuries alleged to have been suffered by the claimant-respondent had no direct connection with the nature of employment with the claimant-respondent. Considering the fact that claimant-respondent was employed as driver and his job was to drive the tractor. Accordingly, it is submitted that commissioner has erred-in-law in entertaining the claim petition and awarding Rs.2,98,867 lacs as compensation to the respondent.

¶4Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the Threasher was attached with the tractor and it appears that the claimant-respondent was driving the Tractor and because of the defect in Threasher he has tried to repair the same and accidentally he suffered injuries in repairing the belt of the Threasher which resulted in amputation of his hand.

¶5Be that as it may. It is not in dispute that the claimant-respondent was employed as driver on the Tractor and at the relevant time it appears that he was driving the Tractor and there was some defect in the Threasher and, therefore, he was trying to repair the Threasher and while repairing the Threasher he suffered injuries. Since, it reflects from the record that the claimant-respondent was driving the Tractor and suffered injuries while on duty, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is not sustainable and is rejected.

¶6The appeal under Section 30 of Worker's Compensation Act shall lie only on the substantial question of law and the instant case no substantial question of law is involved.

¶7Thus, for the reasons given above, the present appeal lacks merit and is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 A Gautam High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad