Vee Ess Enterprises Vs. Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.orderamareshwar sahay, j.1. heard the parties.2. the petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order as contained in annexure-3 to the writ application dated 22.1.2002 whereby the project officer, parej east, o/c project, p.o. ghatotand, district-hazaribagh has deducted rs. 2,11,790/- (rs. two lakhs eleven thousand seven hundred and ninety) from the 2nd running bill of the petitioner by way of compensation under the workmen's compensation act on account of death of one talo manjhi who was said to be employee of the petitioner employed as guard.3. mr. v. shivnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the project officer of the central coalfields limited had no authority or jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensation under the workmen's compensation act and to deduct the said amount from the running bill of the petitioner. it is submitted that only the commissioner under the workmen's compensation act has the jurisdiction to decide as to whether the petitioner was liable to pay any amount by way of compensation. but in the present case the project officer without any authority under the law has illegally and arbitrarily issued annexure-3 and deducted the aforesaid amount of rs. 2,11,790/- by way of compensation.4. mr. k.k. srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the basis of the counter affidavit filed, has submitted that though the project officer has no jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensation under the workmen's compensation act but since the respondents were the principal employer and because of the fact that the petitioner was avoiding his legal and moral responsibilities and therefore the said amount has been deducted from the running bill of the petitioner.5. in my view the issuance of annexure-3 by the project officer determining the compensation under the workmen'scompensations act and thereby asking theassistant labour commissioner of its disbursement to the family of the deceasedlate talo manjhi as stated in paragraphs 5and 6 of the counter affidavit, is absolutelywithout jurisdiction. the respondent no. 2the project officer was not authorizedunder the law to determine the amount ofthe compensation under the workmen'scompensation act. accordingly, this application is allowed. the order as containedin annexure-3 dated 22.1.2002 passed bythe project officer, parej east, o/c project,hazaribagh, is hereby quashed and therespondents are directed to refund theamount, so deducted to the petitionerforthwith after receipt/production of a copyof this order.

Judgment:
ORDER

Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application dated 22.1.2002 whereby the Project Officer, Parej East, O/C Project, P.O. Ghatotand, District-Hazaribagh has deducted Rs. 2,11,790/- (Rs. Two lakhs eleven thousand seven hundred and ninety) from the 2nd running bill of the petitioner by way of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act on account of death of one Talo Manjhi who was said to be employee of the petitioner employed as guard.

3. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Project Officer of the Central Coalfields Limited had no authority or jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and to deduct the said amount from the running bill of the petitioner. It is submitted that only the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act has the jurisdiction to decide as to whether the petitioner was liable to pay any amount by way of compensation. But in the present case the Project Officer without any authority under the law has illegally and arbitrarily issued Annexure-3 and deducted the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,11,790/- by way of compensation.

4. Mr. K.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the basis of the counter affidavit filed, has submitted that though the Project Officer has no jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act but since the respondents were the principal employer and because of the fact that the petitioner was avoiding his legal and moral responsibilities and therefore the said amount has been deducted from the running bill of the petitioner.

5. In my view the issuance of Annexure-3 by the Project Officer determining the compensation under the Workmen'sCompensations Act and thereby asking theAssistant Labour Commissioner of its disbursement to the family of the deceasedLate Talo Manjhi as stated in paragraphs 5and 6 of the counter affidavit, is absolutelywithout jurisdiction. The respondent No. 2the Project Officer was not authorizedunder the law to determine the amount ofthe compensation under the Workmen'sCompensation Act. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The order as containedin Annexure-3 dated 22.1.2002 passed bythe Project Officer, Parej East, O/C Project,Hazaribagh, is hereby quashed and therespondents are directed to refund theamount, so deducted to the petitionerforthwith after receipt/production of a copyof this order.