IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.268 of 2004 THE CHAIRMAN ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & OTHERS Versus SALEHA KHATOON & ORS ----------- 8/ 22.08.2008 This appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., which is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.06.2004 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner-Cum-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Gaya, in C.W.C. Case No. 16 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the learned Compensation Commissioner has directed the appellant to pay Rs. 3,37,311/- and also further directed for realisation of interest at the rate of 9% per annum, in case such payment is not made within one month from the date of passing of order. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 Brij Kishore who happened to be opposite party No. 1 in the court below being owner of truck No. B.R.B. 3039, has also been heard. Nobody appears for the claimants/respondents against whom notices were said to have been duly served upon them. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4. Mostt. Saleha Khatoon filed a case seeking compensation before the Compensation Commissioner, Gaya, on account of death of her husband Md. Alam Mian who was murdered on 20th February, 2002, while he was performing duties as a Khalasi in the aforesaid truck belonging to respondent No. 4 Brij Kishore. Such death of her husband took place on the National Highway, near Padma Police Station, in the district of Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, for which an F.I.R. was lodged being - 2 - Ichak (Hazaribagh) P.S. Case No. 23 of 2002, and post mortem examination of the deceased was held. Md. Alam Mian was said to be aged about 32 years old at the time of his death. The truck concerned was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. bearing Policy No. 3262. The premium for the period commencing from 22.03.2001 to 21.03.2002 was also paid for the driver and cleaner. Contention has been advanced on behalf of the owner/ respondent no. 4 that, as a matter of fact, he has denied the employment of deceased Md. Alam Mian as his cleaner attached with the aforesaid truck. So, the owner is not at all responsible for the murder of Md. Alam Mian which took place in the district of Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. The proper forum for entertaining such petition was not Gaya, rather it should have been Hazaribagh. Learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi has submitted that when there is denial of a very relationship of the deceased and the owner of the truck, the question of involvement and payment of any money by way of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased does not arise. Moreover, it has also been submitted that when there is contest in respect of cleaner for the compensation, there is no jurisdiction of Deputy Labour Commissioner- Cum-Compensation Commissioner. Rather, he is legally bound to refer the matter to the labour court and Presiding Officer of the labour court, as compensation Commissioner is empowered to decide the matter as provided under Section 20 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. - 3 - In the facts and circumstances, the very jurisdiction of the Compensation Commissioner has been challenged here, firstly on the ground that he was precluded from deciding any contested matter and secondly, on the ground that such power is not vested in the jurisdiction of Compensation Commissioner, Gaya, for the incident and event which took place in the district of Hazaribagh in the State of Jharkhand. Having considered the aforesaid matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the court below for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law so that such matter could be decided by the Compensation Commissioner for the purpose of jurisdiction. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Sanjeet (Subash Chandra Jha, J.)