# The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Kamlesh @ Nangi and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 760
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-07-14
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 1702 of 2008
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-v-smt-kamlesh-nangi-and-others-41169
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Workmen Compensation Act 1923Section 21(1)-Territorial jurisdiction
of
Commissioner-order
passed
by
Addl.
Commissioner
Firozabadaccident
took
place
at
Mainpuriadmittedly Firozabad being integral
part
of
Agra
Division-technical
objection unsustainable.

Held: Para 2

Hence, by virtue of distribution of
work
the
Assistant
Commissioner
sitting at Firozabad being integral part
of the Agra Division has rightly taken
up the matter. This allocation of
business is not in contravention of
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section
21 of the Act, which speaks for notice
to
the
Commissioner
having
jurisdiction where the accident took
place. This provision specifically deals
with different Commissioners not with
regard
to
different
Assistant
Commissioners
under
one
Commissioner when distribution of
works will be regulated under the
general or special order of the State.

(B) Practice of Procedure-Application
by legal representation of deceased
workman-presumption of legal heirs
always there-unless proved otherwise.

Held: Para 6

We are of the view that whenever any
application for compensation is made
by heirs and legal representatives of
the deceased, it shall be presumed
that
they
are
heirs
and
legal
representatives of the deceased until
and unless it has been challenged by
anyone. Therefore, the onus is lying
upon the contesting party to prove
that the claimants are not the legal
heirs and legal representatives of the
deceased which they failed to do
before the Commissioner. Hence, we
can not accept such submission.
Case law discussed:
2006 (108) FLR 351 2006

## Text

760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 1702 of 2008

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kamlesh @ Nangi and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Arun Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:

(A) Workmen Compensation Act 1923Section 21(1)-Territorial jurisdiction
of
Commissioner-order
passed
by
Addl.
Commissioner
Firozabadaccident
took
place
at
Mainpuriadmittedly Firozabad being integral
part
of
Agra
Division-technical
objection unsustainable.

Held: Para 2

Hence, by virtue of distribution of
work
the
Assistant
Commissioner
sitting at Firozabad being integral part
of the Agra Division has rightly taken
up the matter. This allocation of
business is not in contravention of
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section
21 of the Act, which speaks for notice
to
the
Commissioner
having
jurisdiction where the accident took
place. This provision specifically deals
with different Commissioners not with
regard
to
different
Assistant
Commissioners
under
one
Commissioner when distribution of
works will be regulated under the
general or special order of the State.

(B) Practice of Procedure-Application
by legal representation of deceased
workman-presumption of legal heirs
always there-unless proved otherwise.

Held: Para 6

We are of the view that whenever any
application for compensation is made
by heirs and legal representatives of
the deceased, it shall be presumed
that
they
are
heirs
and
legal
representatives of the deceased until
and unless it has been challenged by
anyone. Therefore, the onus is lying
upon the contesting party to prove
that the claimants are not the legal
heirs and legal representatives of the
deceased which they failed to do
before the Commissioner. Hence, we
can not accept such submission.
Case law discussed:
2006 (108) FLR 351 2006

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.)

1. This appeal has been filed
challenging the impugned judgment
and order dated 24th April, 2008 passed
by
the
concerned
Workmen's
Compensation
Commissioner,
Agra.
The awarded amount is Rs.2,61,965.00.
The specific point has been taken by
the learned Counsel appearing in
support of the insurance Company that
by virtue of proviso to sub-section (1)
of
Section
21
of
Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter
called "the Act") no matter shall be
processed
before
or
by
the
Commissioner,
other
than
the
Commissioner having jurisdiction over
the area in which the accident took
place, without giving notice in the
manner prescribed by the Central
Government
to
the
Commissioner
having jurisdiction over the area and
the State Government concerned. He
3 All] The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Kamlesh @ Nangi and others
761
also relied upon proviso to sub-rule (1)
of Rule 3 of Workmen's Compensation
(Venue of Proceedings) Rules, 1996.
The same set of provision is available
there as in proviso to sub-section (1) of
Section 21 of the Act. However, in the
Rules there is provision of giving
notice under From A. We do not find
any objection with regard to venue of
proceeding
in
the
court
of
Commissioner so that there should be
notice under Form A. However, since it
is
a
question
of
law,
we
have
extensively gone through it.

2. Admittedly the place of death is
Mainpuri which comes under the Agra
Division, if Section 2(b) is read with
Section 20 (2), the definition of
Commissioner
will
be
understood.
Where more than one Commissioner
has been appointed for any area, the
State Government may, by general or
special order, regulate the distribution
of
business
between
themselves.
Therefore, although the actual venue is
Mainpuri where the accident was
caused yet being part of Agra Division
such place can be considered as a part
of Agra so far as this Act is concerned.
Hence, by virtue of distribution of
work
the
Assistant
Commissioner
sitting at Firozabad being integral part
of the Agra Division has rightly taken
up the matter. This allocation of
business is not in contravention of
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21
of the Act, which speaks for notice to
the Commissioner having jurisdiction
where the accident took place. This
provision
specifically
deals
with
different
Commissioners
not
with
regard
to
different
Assistant
Commissioners
under
one
Commissioner when distribution of
works will be regulated under the
general or special order of the State.

3. Therefore, we do not find any
cogent reason to admit the case on such
ground.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for
the appellant has cited judgment of the
learned Single Judge reported in 2006
(108) FLR 351 2006 (M/s Chawla
Techno
Construction
Ltd.
and
another Vs. State of U.P. and others)
and it has also been contended that this
Division Bench also remitted other
matters
to
the
Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner for the
purpose of consideration of cause. As
the distinguishable feature is available
in this case, such ratio can not be
applicable herein. Even in the reported
case the jurisdiction of Delhi and
Allahabad was considered by applying
Section 21 of the Act which is different
scenario altogether. Therefore, we do
not find any genuine cause to interfere
with the impugned judgment and order
on such issue.

5. In addition to such ground, the
learned Counsel has also argued that no
documentary proof of heirs and legal
representative of the deceased was
considered by the Commissioner.

6. We are of the view that
whenever
any
application
for
compensation is made by heirs and
legal representatives of the deceased, it
shall be presumed that they are heirs
and
legal
representatives
of
the
deceased until and unless it has been
challenged by anyone. Therefore, the
onus is lying upon the contesting party
to prove that the claimants are not the
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
legal heirs and legal representatives of
the deceased which they failed to do
before the Commissioner. Hence, we
can not accept such submission.

Therefore, in totally the appeal is
dismissed, however, without imposing
any cost.
---------