0

Court granted protection to lawyer and his family who received threats from a person claiming to be confined in Jail: Rajasthan High Court

The High Court of Rajasthan, through learned judge, Justice Rameshwar Vyas in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v Sharda & others (S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 196/2022) observed that the scope of the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855 is wider than the scope of Employees Compensation Act of 1923.

BRIEF FACTS: The instant appeal was filed by the Insurance Company against the judgement and decree  passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Bikaner in Civil suit whereby the court directed the dependents of the deceased to be given compensation of Rs.5,94,160/- under the Fatal Accident Act. Brief facts of the case are as follows. The deceased was an employee in Pratibha Industries Ltd and he died during the course of his employment, while he was doing work of removing soil from the pipeline in the ditch. The incident was reported to the police, upon which FIR No. under Section 302 and 287 IPC was registered. All the employees working under Pratibha Industries Ltd. were insured under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the income of the deceased was more than Rs.4,000/- per month, whereas, the insurance was with regard to workers drawing salary less than Rs.4,000/- per month each. At the time of the incident, no security measures were provided to the employees by the employer. Therefore, the conditions of the policy were also violated. He further submitted that the Insurance Company was liable only under the provisions of the Act of 1923 and that the dependents of deceased had remedy to file claim petition under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. He also argued that the wife of the deceased has re-married, and hence she was not entitled to get the compensation

FINDINGS OF THE COURT: The court heard the contentions raised by both the parties and regarding the issue of  not filing claim under the Act of 1923, held that  though claimants had remedy under the Act of 1923 , there was no bar to file suit for compensation under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855. The provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855 applies against all wrong doers including the employer. The court held that the scope of the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855 is wider than the scope of Act of 1923. With regard to contention related to remarrying of the deceased’s wife, the court held that the same does not disentitle her from claiming compensation for the death of her husband. 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K

Click here to read Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat