--1-- M.A No.620 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI M.A. No. 620 of 2018 ---- 1. Branch Manager National Insurance Company Ltd., Office Address – D No.11-05-12/4, Near Collectorate Office, Wyra Road Khammam, Andhra Pradesh – 507002 2. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Ravindra Path, Patna-Ranchi Road, PO and PS – Hazaribagh, District – Hazaribagh Duly represented through its Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Jharkhand Legal Cell, Kutchery Road, Post Office – GPO, Police Station – Kotwali, District – Ranchi - 834001 .... Appellant -- Versus -- 1. Mossamat Manorma, w/o – Late Laxman Bhuiyan 2. Anshu Kumar, age about 4 years, s/o – Late Laxman Bhuiyan 3. Amit Kumar (age about 8 years) s/o – Late Laxman Bhuiyan 4. Eshwar Bhuiyan, father of the deceased Late Laxman Bhuiyan 5. Kunti Devi, w/o Eshwar Bhuiyan and mother of the deceased Late Laxman Bhuiyan Claimant No.2 and 3 duly represented through his mother & natural guardian, Mossamat Manorama (claimant No.1) All are residents of village – Podo, PS – Chauparan, PO – Basariya, District – Hazaribagh .... Claimants/ Respondents 6. K. Venkatesware Rao s/o not known Resident of 10-6-10/12/1, 10th Main Road, PO and PS – Mamillaguden, District – Khammam, Andhra Pradesh – 507001 (owner of insured machine SK-210-LC-B-Hudraulic Excavator ….. O.P. No.1 / Respondent ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Appellants :- Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate For O.P. Nos.1 to 5 :- Mr. Rajendra Pd. Gupta, Advocate :- Mr. Amandeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate :- Ms. Ankita, Advocate For O.P. No.6 :- Mr. Arun Kr. Dubey, Advocate --2-- M.A No.620 of 2018 :- Mr. Mukul Kr. Singh, Advocate ---- 16/12.02.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. 2. This appeal is preferred against the award dated 26.06.2018 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribagh in Workmen Compensation Case No.38 of 2011. 3. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the claimants filed the petition claiming that on 11.02.2009, Laxman Bhuiyan employed as Labour and Caretaker of Poclain Machine bearing No. SK-210-LC-B-Hydaurolic Excavator owned by one K. Venkateswara Rao and the said poclain machine while the soil of work was going on in the agricultural well of Nunavath Shanthamma, became unbalanced and dashed the deceased (Laxman Bhuiyan). FIR and Postmortem was made and the police registered the case under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code against the operator of the poclain vide Dornakal P.S. Case No.133 of 2009 dated 11.12.2009 and it was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month plus Rs.50/- per day as khorakhi. The poclain machine was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. and in this background the case was filed under the Workmen Compensation Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the award that policy was with regard to one person and the person who was met with the accident was not covered in the said insurance policy. He further submits that the employment is also not proved and he was not at the --3-- M.A No.620 of 2018 place of work. He submits that the deceased was in the field which was not in casual connection is the important question. He submits that the said accident has not taken place arising out of the course of the employment. On this ground, he submits that the award may kindly be set aside. 5. Mr. Rajendra Pd. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the deceased was employed in the said poclain machine and due to crushment the death of the deceased has occurred. 6. Mr. Arun Kr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6, who is the owner of the said poclain machine, submits that during the course of the employment, the death of the deceased has occurred and the learned Commissioner has held that there is relationship of employer and employee. He submits that there is no illegality in the award. 7. It is an admitted position that the accident has taken place and pursuant to that the FIR has been registered being Dornakal P.S. Case No.133 of 2009 and postmortem was also made. AW-1, who is the wife of the deceased has stated that her husband was employed by OP No. – 1 on poclain machine as a labourer, who died during the course of his employment, AW-2 has also deposed on the same line and AW-3 had gone to the place of occurrence to carry dead body of the deceased and he has also corroborated the statement of AW-1. FIR was registered and was marked as Exhibit-1 and charge-sheet as Exhibit-2 respectively which also proved the same. In the charge-sheet, it has been specially mentioned that the driver of the poclain machine has run over the body --4-- M.A No.620 of 2018 of the deceased and due to that the body of Lakshman Bhuiyan was crushed and due to that he died. Postmortem report was marked as Exhibit-3. 8. Thus, the death on employment has been proved by way of leading evidence and in this background the stand taken by the insurance company of relationship of employer employee has been rejected by the learned Commissioner and a sum of Rs.4,91,558/- was awarded along with 12% interest from the date of accident. 9. For establishing the liability under Section 3 of Employees Compensation Act three conditions are required to be attracted that is the death or injury must have been caused to the employee and the said injury must have been caused by accident and the accident must be arising out of in the course of the employment. 10. It is well settled that if the injury or death from the point of view of the employee who dies or suffer the injury is unexpected or without design on his part, then the death or injury would be by accident. 11. Further the said act is a welfare legislation and it is expected that the provisions would receive liberal interpretation so as to advance the object and purpose of the said Act. 12. It has been proved by way of leading evidence that the deceased was employed on the said poclain machine and the said poclain machine was insured with the insurance company and if the insurance policy covering the said vehicle involve in accident providing to indemnify owner of the said vehicle and even assuming that the deceased was only a third party. The claim under the said insurance company cannot be denied as the vehicle in question was insured with the insurance --5-- M.A No.620 of 2018 company and admittedly the deceased was employed on the said poclain machine and due to crushment he has died. 13. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the Court finds that there is no illegality in the award dated 26.06.2018 as such, this appeal is dismissed. 14. The appellant had deposited the awarded amount with the Labour Court, Hazaribagh and in view of that the amount in question will be disbursed to the claimants by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribagh forthwith and this exercise will be completed preferably within three weeks from today. 15. Pending petition, if any, is also disposed of. 16. Let the trial court record be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/ A.F.R.