Wife Remarrying After Husband's Death In Accident Does Not Disentitle Her From Compensation Under Employees' Compensation Act: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that remarrying of the deceased's wife does not disentitle her from claiming compensation for death of her husband under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The court added that the amount of compensation awarded by the trial court looking at the young age of the deceased and number of claimants cannot be said to be unreasonable.

Justice Rameshwar Vyas, while dismissing the first appeal preferred by the Insurance Company observed,

"Contention with regard to remarrying of the deceased's wife is concerned, the same does not disentitle her from claiming compensation for death of her husband. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned trial court looking to the young age of the deceased and number of claimants cannot be said to be unreasonable. There is no merit in this appeal."

While dealing with the appellants' contention regarding not filing the claim under the Act of 1923, the court clarified that though claimants also had remedy under the Act of 1923 and there is no bar to file suit for compensation under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855. The court opined that the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855 applies against all wrong doers including the employer.

The court observed that the scope of the provisions of Fatal Accident Act, 1855 is wider than the scope of Act of 1923. The court added that Civil Courts are competent to entertain any civil dispute unless it is barred by any law. There is no bar under any provisions of law to claim compensation under the Fatal Accident Act by an employee against his employer, added the court.

The court noted that it is not in dispute that the deceased was an employee of Pratibha Industries Ltd. and that the Workmen Compensation Policy issued in favour of Pratibha Industries Ltd. by the appellant – Insurance Company was in force at the time of incident. It is not in dispute that the compensation was assessed on the monthly income of Rs. 2600/- of the deceased, which is below Rs.4,000/- per month, added the court.

Facts

Essentially, the deceased Premaram @ Premratan was an employee in Pratibha Industries Ltd. He died on 18.6.2008, during the course of his employment, while he was doing work of removing soil from the pipeline in the ditch. The masala mixture machine fell upon him as a result of which he collapsed. At the time of his death, he was aged 25 years and earning Rs.250/- per day in lieu of labour work. At that time, defendant nos. 1 and 2 were Supervisor and Managing Director of the Pratibha Industries Ltd. The incident was reported to the police, upon which FIR under Section 302 and 287 IPC was registered. All the employees working under Pratibha Industries Ltd. were insured under the Wokmen's Compensation Act, 1923.. After trial, the learned trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved with the same, this first appeal has been filed.

Arguments

The appellants' counsel submitted that the insurance company issued a policy in the category of workmen compensation for 30 employees drawing a salary less than Rs.4,000/-. He argued that since the deceased was an employee of Pratibha Industries Ltd, the dependents of the deceased had the remedy to file a claim petition under the Act of 1923. He also argued that Insurance Company is liable only under the provisions of the Act of 1923.

He submitted that the wife of the deceased has remarried and is not entitled to get the compensation. He further submitted that the Insurance Company was impleaded as party respondent at a belated stage. He argued that the income of the deceased was more than Rs.4,000/- per month, whereas, the insurance was with regard to workers drawing a salary less than Rs.4,000/- per month each. He added that at the time of the incident, no security measures were provided to the employees by the employer. Therefore, he contended that the conditions of the policy have also been violated.

Adv. Dhanpat Choudhary appeared for the appellants.

Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. .v. Sharda

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 190

Click here to read/ download Judgment