- (1.) The victim was a Sailor. He met with an accident on board. He was treated at the cost of the Shipping Company, however, was declared medically unfit for sea service. He was 54 years old, when he was declared medically unfit. He had six more years to his credit. Subsequently, he died at the age of sixty years. His wife being the respondent made a claim on account of death compensation. According to the wife, his death was due to an accident, while in service. Hence, she should be paid death compensation as per Clause 100 of the Agreement. Clause 100, as we see from the Maritime Agreement entered into between National Maritime Board and the recognized employees' union, would deal with cases, where death occurred on board while on duty. Here, the victim suffered the accident. He was treated and after treatment he was declared unfit for sea service. Once he was discharged from service, he was no longer an employee of the Shipping Corporation, particularly when he died after six years. Hence, in our view, Clause 100 could not be applied. The learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act however, overlooked this aspect and granted death compensation as per Clause 100 that became a subject matter of the present appeal.
(2.) We have heard Mr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Upendra Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
(3.) We find that Clause 120 would be the appropriate provision for compensation. It inter alia, provides, "for rating under the age of 55 years - three months basic wages per year of articled service on the Company's vessel subject to a minimum of Rs. 65,000/-.";