UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RUSTAM ALI
LAWS(GAU)-2018-9-52
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on September 04,2018

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
VERSUS
RUSTAM ALI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - (1.) Head Mr. S. Dutta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on call for the respondent, although notice was duly served on respondent No. 1 in a substituted manner by newspaper publication of notice. No notice was served on the respondent No. 2, Shri Prahlad Roy, as such, his name stands deleted at the risk of the appellant.
(2.) This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the judgment and award dated 12.05.2005 in W.C. Case No. 145/2002 was admitted for hearing by order dated 25.07.2008, on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether daily allowance paid to the workman would form part of the wages as defined under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? 2. Whether Commissioner can assess himself the loss of earning capacity without specific evidence of Doctor?
(3.) The case of the respondent No. 1/claimant, in brief, is that he was employed as labourer in a truck bearing Registration No. NLK-5047 owned by respondent No. 2. On 30.11.2001, while the truck was proceeding towards Hojai from Tinsukia, the said truck loaded with oranges met with an accident at Diring Chariali under Kohora Police out post at about 4-50 A.M, where the truck had collided with another stationary truck. As a result of the accident, the respondent No. 1 had suffered grievous injuries on chest, both legs, shoulder joint and waist. He was rushed to a nearest clinic at Kohora by the police of Bokakhat Police Station where he was given first aid treatment. Later on he was treated by a doctor at Nagaon for his injuries but having not recovered, he had filed a claim petition after serving notice to the employer under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The respondent No. 2, the employer did not contest the claim petition and the case was proceeded ex-parte against him. The appellant herein had contested the claim case by filing their written statement and denied the responsibility of paying compensation.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.