LABOUR LAW

Notice Of Accident And Claim

For Compensaton By The
Workman

Submitted by

Submitted to

Varinder Negi
NOTICE OF ACCIDENT AND CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION BY THE
WORKMAN

Where an accident occurs in respect of which liability of the employer to pay compensation
under the Employees' Compensation Act arises, a claim for compensation may be made
before the Commissioner. But no claim for compensation is entertained by the Commissioner
unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner provided in the Act as soon as
practicable after the happening thereof. The notice of accident is given to the employer by the
employee himself or by any other person acting bona fide on behalf of the employee.

NOTICE OF ACCIDENT

Section 10 of the employees compensation Act provides for the notice and claim for the
compensation of the employee as follows :

Section 10 Notice And Claim.- (1) No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a
Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter
provided as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred
before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or, in case of death, within two
years from the date of death:
Provided that, where the accident is the contracting of a disease in respect of which
the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 3 are applicable, the accident shall be deemed to
have occurred on the first of the days during which the workman was continuously absent
from work in consequence of the disablement caused by the disease:
Provided further that in case of partial disablement due to the contracting of any such
disease and which does not force the workman to absent himself from work, the period of
two years shall be counted from the day the workman gives notice of the disablement to his
employer: Provided further that if a workman who, having been employed in an employment
for a continuous period, specified under sub- section (2) of section 3 in respect of that
employment, ceases to be so employed and develops symptoms of an occupational disease
peculiar to that employment within two years of the cessation of employment, the accident
shall be deemed to have occurred on the day on which the symptoms were first detected:
Provided further that the want of or any defect or irregularity in a notice shall not be a
bar to the entertainment of a claim-
(a) if the claim is preferred] in respect of the death of a workman resulting from an accident
which occurred on the premises of the employer, or at any place where the workman at the
time of the accident was working under the control of the employer or of any person
employed by him, and the workman died on such premises or at such place, or on any
premises belonging to the employer, or died without having left the vicinity of the premises
or place where the accident occurred, or
(b) if the employer or any one of several employers or any person responsible to the employer
for the management of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured workman was
employed had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or about the time when it
occurred: Provided further, that the Commissioner may entertain and decide any claim to
compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given, or the claim has
not been preferred, in due time as provided in this sub- section, if he is satisfied that the
failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim, as the case may be, was due to sufficient
cause.
(2) Every such notice shall give the name and address of the person injured and shall state in
ordinary language the cause of the injury and the date on which the accident happened, and
shall be served on the employer or upon any one of several employers, or upon any
person responsible to the employer for the management of any branch of the trade or business
in which the injured workman was employed.
(3) The State Government may require that any prescribed class of employers shall maintain
at their premises at which workmen are employed a notice- book, in the prescribed form,
which shall be readily accessible at all reasonable times to any injured workman employed on
the premises and to any person acting bona fide on his behalf.
(4) A notice under this section may be served by delivering it at, or sending it by registered
post addressed to, the residence or any office or place of business of the person on whom it is
to be served, or, where a notice- book is maintained, by entry in the notice- book.
Maintenance of notice book by the employer
According to Sec 10(3), the State Government may require that any prescribed class of
employers shall maintain a notice- book, at their premises at which workmen are employed in
the prescribed form, which shall be readily accessible at all reasonable times to any injured
workman employed on the premises and to any person acting bona fide on his behalf. The
employer may fail to maintain the notice book as v be required by the State Government. in
such case according to Sec 18A, the employer is punishable with fine which may extend to
five thousand rupees Where a notice book is maintained, a notice of accident is served on the
i not employer by making an entry in the notice book. But if the notice book s maintained,
then according to Sec. 10(4), the notice may be served by delivering it at, or sending it by
registered post addressed to, the residence or any office or place of business of the person on
whom it is to be served.
Service of notice as soon as practicable after the accident

The Employees Compensation Act does not specify the time period within which the notice
of accident is to be given by the employee or any person acting on his behalf. But Sec. 10(1)
provides that the notice of the accident must be given as soon as practicable after the
happening thereof. No cast iron rule can be laid down in regard to what is meant by as soon
as practicable.1 Banshidhar Munnalal v. Ram Chandra Badrichand 2, the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh held as follows, notice given two months after the accident may, if the
victim of the accident is continuously in the hospital, be held to be one given as soon as
practicable."

Notice Must Be Served Upon The Employer

According to Sec. 10(2), the notice of accident must be served upon the employer. The notice
may also be served upon any person directly responsible to the employer for the management
of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured employee was employed. 3 A notice
of accident to the co-employer is no notice to the employer4.

The notice of accident enables the employer to check the fact of the accident having
occurred in the course of employment of his employee. The notice enables the employer to
take such steps as he may think fit to mitigate the consequences of the accident.5

The notice to the employer must be served by the employee himself or by any other
person acting bona fide on behalf of the employee.

Time period for preferring claim

1 Banshidhar Munnalal v. Ram Chandra Badrichand, AIR 1960 MP 313

2 AIR 1960 MP 313

3 Iron works v. Maganlal, AIR 1941 Bom.296

4 Ibid

5 Ibid
 According to Sec. 10(1), a claim for compensation is entertained by Commissioner if
the notice of the accident is given as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and the
claim is preferred before the Commissioner :

(i) within two years of the accident; or

(ii) within two years of the death if the death is caused due to accident.

Entertainment of Claim by the Commissioner without notice [Section 10(b)]

The Commissioner may entertain and decide a claim to compensation in any case
notwithstanding that the notice as been given. The Commissioner may also entertain a claim
if it has not been preferred in due time as provided in Section 10(1). The Commissioner
entertains the claim without notice or after the due time if he is satisfied that failure to or
delay in giving the notice is due to some sufficient cause.

In, Niranjan v. Ghanshyamdas6, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that satisfaction of the
Commissioner under Sec. 10(b) should be rational.

The two essential conditions to be fulfilled before the Commissioner entertains any claim by
the employee without the notice or with the after due time are :

(i) satisfaction of the Commissioner

(ii) existence of sufficient cause.

These two conditions are to be interpreted properly.7 Satisfaction of the Commissioner should
be rational. While getting satisfied the Commissioner has to look to the surrounding
circumstances which prevented the employee from giving the notice or preferring the claim
within due time. For the purpose of finding out whether there has been a sufficient cause, he
has also to be circumspective to the surrounding circumstances of the case.8

Omission to give notice may not vitiate the proceedings

In Dilip Kumar Saha v. Smt. Ratna Das,9 the husband of the claimant Smt. Ratna Das died
in an accident in the course of employment but the claimant respondent did not issue notice in

6 1998 Lab IC 1851 (MP)

7 Niranjan v. Ghanshyamdas, 1998 Lab IC 1851 (MP)

8 Ibid
the terms of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
However, the Commissioner entertained the claim of the claimant respondent even though
claimant respondent did not issue notice in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner directed the employer to pay to the
claimant respondent an amount of Rs. 2,07,980/- as compensation with an interest @ 12% per
annum from the date of accident. Thereafter the Commissioner also imposed the penalty of
Rs. 51,995/- being 25% of the compensation awarded. One of the contentions raised by the
appellant employer was that the entire proceeding before the Commissioner is vitiated as the
claimant respondent did not issue notice in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The Court in this case10 held that it is the legal position
that the claim becomes due on the date of the accident, no where it has been provided that if a
notice is not given in terms of Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 the
employer stands absolved from the statutory liability to pay at least the provisional amount as
contemplated in sub-section (2) of Section 4-A. The learned f Commissioner in this case
recorded that the employer was asked to show cause as to why the penalty should not be
imposed upon him as per provision of sub-section 3(b) of Section 4-A of the Employees
Compensation Act, 1923. But the employer failed to submit the reply. In such a situation the
mandatory provision in Section 4-A 3(b) is that the Commissioner shall direct the employer
to pay further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty; it is the
employer who is at fault for not showing cause leaving the Commissioner with no alternative
but to pass the order of penalty. Accordingly the High Court did not find any legal infirmity
in the order of the Commissioner except that the order of the Commissioner was modified to
the extent that the Commissioner directed the employer to pay the penalty to the State
Government which was contrary to the provision of Section 4-A(3) and therefore the High
Court modified the order of the Commissioner to the extent that the penalty shall be payable
to the dependant of the deceased employee.

The circumstances in which the defect or irregularity in a notice of accident is not a bar to the
entertainment of a claim are as follows:

9 2006 Lab IC 1816 Gau

10
Death of the employee on or in the vicinity the premises of employer. [Sec. 10(1)(a)]
Defect or irregularity in a notice is not a bar to the entertainment of a claim if the claim is
preferred in respect of the death of an employee resulting from an accident which, occurred :

(i) on the premises of the employer;

(ii) at any place where the employee at the time of the accident was working under the
control of the employer or of any person employed by him, and the employee died
on such premises; or
(iii) on any premises belonging to the employer.

According to Sec. 10(1)(a), defect or irregularity in the notice is not a bar to claim if the
employee has died without having left the vicinity of the premises or place where the
accident occurred.

From a plain reading of Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 it is clear that
the section contemplates notice to the employer, but not to the insurer of the employer. From
the fourth provision to sub-section (1) of Section 10, it is seen that in cases of accidents
resulting in the death of an employee and when such accident occurred on the premises of the
employer, or at any place where the employee, at the time of accident was working under the
control of the employer or any person employed by him, omission to give notice is not a bar
for filing claim for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. In Oriental
Insurance Co. v. S.K. Dada Bademiya, the deceased was a cleaner who died while working
under the control of driver employed by the employer. It was held in this case that since the
deceased cleaner died while he was working under the control of the driver employed by the
employer, the claim can be filed even without a notice to the employer.

(1) Accident in the knowledge of the employer. [Sec. 10(1)(b)

Defect or irregularity in notice of accident is not a bar to the entertainment of a claim if the
employer or anyone of several employers or any person responsible to the employer for the
management of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured employee was
employed had knowledge of the accident. The employer or any person responsible to him
may have the knowledge from any other source at or about the time when the accident
occurred.

No need of notice where the employer has the knowledge of accident

Although the provision under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923
mandates that notice is must, yet if employer has the knowledge of the accident, there is no
need to comply with the requirement of notice under Section 10 of the Act. In Superintending
Engineer v. Mohammad Shah Magary, the respondent was in the employment of appellant
and during the course of employment, he sustained injuries and the appellant had the
knowledge of the accident. In this case it was held that as the employer had the knowledge
the accident, there was no need to serve notice to the employer under section 10 of the
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 by the employee claim compensation under Section 4 of
the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF WORKMAN (SEC. 11)

An employer may offer free of charge medical examination of the employee before the
expiry of three days from the time at which service of notice of accident has been given by
the employee. The medical examination is to be made by a qualified medical practitioner.
Such offer by the employer may be made to an employee who is in receipt of a half-monthly
payment under the Employees Compensation Act from time to time. When an offer of
medical examination is made by the employer under Sec. 11, then the employee has to submit
himself for medical examination. However, according to Sec. 11(1), an employee is not
required to submit himself for examination by a medical practitioner otherwise than in
accordance with the rules made under the Act. Neither an employee who is in receipt of half-
monthly payment is to submit himself for medical examination at more frequent intervals
than may be prescribed.

Sub-sec. (1) of Sec 11 is as follows

Where an employee has given notice of an accident, he. shall, if the

employer, before the expiry of three days from the time at which service of the
notice has been effected offers to have him examined free of charge by a qualified
medical practitioner, submit himself of such examination, and any employee who
is in receipt of a half-monthly payment under this Act shall, if so required,
submit himself for such examination from time to time :

Provided that an employee shall not be required to submit himself for

examination by a medical practitioner otherwise than in accordance with rules
made under this Act, or at more frequent intervals than may be prescribed.
 Employee's refusal to medical examination and suspension of his right to
compensation. [Sec. 11(2)(3)]

(i) According to sub-section (2) of section 11, an employee's right to compensation is

suspended if he refuses to submit himself for medical examination offered by the
employer. However, such refusal should not be due to any sufficient cause. Sub-
section (2) of Section 11 reads as follows:

"If an employee, on being required to do so by the employer under sub-

section (1) or by the Commissioner at any time, refuses to submit himself for
examination by a qualified medical practitioner or in any way obstructed the
same, his right to compensation shall be suspended during the continuance of
such refusal or obstruction unless, in the case of refusal, he was provided by any
sufficient cause from so submitting himself."

(ii) Employee's right to compensation is also suspended if he voluntarily leaves

the place where he was required to submit himself for medical examination under
sub-section (1) of Sec. 11. Sub-section (3) of section 11 reads as follows:

"If an employee, before the expiry of the period within which he is liable under sub-
section (1) to be required to submit himself for medical examination, voluntarily leaves
without having his right to compensation shall be suspended until he returns and offers
himself for such examination."

No compensation for period of Suspension (Sec. 11(5) According to sub-section (1) and
sub-section (2) of Section 11, an employee's right to compensation is suspended if he refuses
to submit himself for medical examination. According to sub-section (5) of Sec. 11, no
compensation shall be payable in respect of period of suspension, if the period of suspension
commences before the expiry of the waiting period referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1)
of section 4, the waiting period shall be increased by the period during which the suspension
continues.

Death of the employee without medical examination [Section 11(4)1 An employee who
refused to submit himself therefore, whose right to compensation has been suspended under
sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Sec. 11 may die without medical examination. In such
case the Commissioner, may, if he thinks fit, direct the payment of compensation to the
dependants of the deceased employee.
Aggravation of injury in disregard of medical instructions. [Sec. 11(6)] The employment
injury suffered by an employee may aggravate due to employee's refusal to submit himself
for medical examination offered by his employer. The employment injury may. also aggravate
if the employee deliberately disregards the instructions given by medical practitioner if he
submits himself for medical examination. In such case according to Sec. 11(6) the nature of
aggravation of injury is deemed to be such as it would have been if the medical instructions
had been followed by the employee. The compensation is also paid according to that deemed
aggravation of injury as if the medical instructions have been followed. Sub-section (6) of
Sec. 11 reads follows:

"Where an injured employee has refused to be attended by a qualified medical

practitioner whose services have been offered to him by the employer free of charge or
having accepted such offer has deliberately disregarded the instructions of such medical
practitioner, then if it is proved that the employee has not thereafter been regularly
attended by a qualified medical practitioner or having been so attended has deliberately
failed to follow his instructions and that such refusal, disregard or failure was
unreasonable in the circumstances of the case and that the injury has been aggravated
thereby, the injury and resulting disablement shall be deemed to be of the same nature
and duration as they might reasonably have been expected to be if the employee has
been regularly attended by a qualified medical practitioner whose instructions he had
followed, and compensation, if any, shall be payable accordingly

TIME PERIOD FOR PREFERRING CLAIM

According to Sec. 10(1), claim for compensation is entertained by the Commissioner if the
notice of the accident is given as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and the claim
is preferred before the commissioner

(1) within two years of the accident or

(2) within two years from the death if the death is caused clue to accident.

Contracting of occupational disease

The accident may be the contracting of disease in respect of which the compensation is
payable under the Act. Then according to Sec. 10(1), the accident is deemed to have occurred
on the first of the days during which the employee was continuously absent from work in
consequence of the disablement caused by the disease.
Partial disablement caused by occupational disease

An employee may suffer partial disablement due to contracting of disease which does not
force the employee to absent himself from work. Then according to Sec. 10(1), the period of
limitation for making claim is counted from the day the employee gives notice of disablement
to his employer.

Contracting of disease after cessation of employment

An employee may cease to be employed but develops symptoms of an occupational disease

peculiar to that employment. Such symptoms may be developed within two years of the
cessation of employment. Then according to Sec. 10(1), the accident is deemed to have
occurred on the day on which the symptoms were first detected.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO NOTICE AND CLAIM

Sec. 15, 15-A and 15-B provides for the special provisions relating to notice and claim by the
employee who is employed:

(i) as a seaman on the ship; or

(ii) as a member of crew of an aircraft; or
(iii) by companies registered in India and working abroad; or
(iv) abroad along with motor vehicles registered under the Mot, Vehicles Act, 1988 as
drivers, helpers, mechanics, cleaners or other employees

15. Special provisions relating to masters and seamenThis Act shall apply in the case of
employees who are masters of ships or seamen subject to the following modifications,
namely :

(1) The notice of the accident and the claim for compensation may, except where the person
injured is the master of the ship, be served on the master of the ship as if he were the
employer, but where the accident happens and the disablement commenced on board the ship,
it shall not be necessary for any seaman to give any notice of the accident.

(2) In the case of the death of a master or seaman, the claim for compensation shall be made
within one year after the news of the death has been received by the claimant or, where the
ship has been or is deemed to have been lost with all hands, within eighteen months of the
date on which the ship whip was, or is deemed to have been, so lost:
Provided that the Commissioner may entertain any claim to compensation in any case
notwithstanding that the claim has not been preferred in due time as provided in this sub-
section, if he is satisfied that the failure so to prefer the claim was due to sufficient cause.

(3) Where an injured master or seaman is discharged or left behind in any part of India or
in any foreign country, any depositions taken by any Judge or Magistrate in that part
or by any Consular Officer in the foreign country and transmitted by the person by
whom they are taken to the Central Government or any State Government shall, in
any proceedings for enforcing the claim, be admissible in evidence
(a) if the deposition is authenticated by the signature of the Judge, Magistrate or
Consular Officer before whom it is made;
(b) If the defendant or the person accused, as the case may be, had an opportunity by
himself or his agent to cross-examine the witness; and
(c) if the deposition was made in the course of a criminal proceeding, on proof that
the, deposition was made in the presence of the person accused,

and it shall not be necessary in any case to prove the signature or official character of the
person appearing to have signed any such deposition and a certificate by such person that the
defendant or the person accused had an opportunity of cross-examining the witness and that
the deposition if made in a criminal proceeding was made in the presence of the person
accused shall, unless the contrary is proved, be sufficient evidence that he had that
opportunity and that it was so made.

(4) No half monthly payment shall be payable in respect of the period during which the
owner of the ship is, under any law in force for the time being relating to merchant shipping,
liable to defray the expenses of maintenance of the injured master or seaman.

(5) No compensation shall be payable under this Act in respect of any injury in respect of
which provision is made for payment of a gratuity, allowance or pension under the War
Pensions and Detention Allowances (Mercantile Marine, etc.) Scheme, 1939, or the War
Pensions and Detention Allowances (Indian Seamen, etc.) Scheme, 1941 made under the
Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act, 1939 (2 & 3 Geo. 6, c. 83), or
under the War Pensions and Detention Allowances (Indian S) Sche2 made by the Central
Government.
(6) Failure to give a notice or make a claim or commence proceedings within the time
required by this Act shall not be a bar to the maintenance proceedings under this Act in
respect of any personal injury, if

(a) an application has been made for Payment in respect of that injury under any of the
schemes refereed to in the preceding clause, and

(b) the State Government certifies that application was made in the reasonable belief that a
the injury was one in respect of which the scheme under which application was made makes
provision for payments and that the application was rejected or that payments made and the
pursuance of the application were discontinued on the ground that the injury was not such an
injury, and

(c) the proceedings under this Act are commenced within one month from the date on which
the said certificate of the State Government was furnished to the person commencing the
proceedings.

15A. Special provisions relating to captains and other members of crew of aircrafts-
This Act shall apply in the case of employees who are captains or other members of the crew
of aircrafts subject to the following modifications, namely :

(1) The notice of the accident and the claim for compensation may, except where the person
injured is the captain of the aircraft, be served on the captain of the aircraft and if he were
the employer, but where the accident happened and the disablement commenced on board
the aircraft, it shall not be necessary for any member of the crew to give notice of the
accident. (2) In the case of the death of the captain or other member of the crew, the claim
for compensation shall be made within one year after the news of the death has been
received by the claimant or where the aircraft has been or is deemed to have been lost
with all hands, within eighteen months of the date on which the aircraft was, or is deemed
to have been, so lost :

Provided that the Commissioner may entertain any claim for compensation in any case
notwithstanding that the claim had not been preferred in due time as provided in this sub-
section, if he is satisfied that the failure so to prefer the claim was due to sufficient cause.

(2) Where an injured captain or other member of the crew of the aircraft is discharged or left
behind in any part of India or in any other country, any depositions taken by any Judge or
 Magistrate in that part or by any Consular Officer in the foreign country and transmitted
by the person by whom they are taken to the Central Government or any State
Government shall in any proceedings for enforcing the claim, be admissible in evidence

(a) if the deposition is authenticated by the signature of the Judge, Magistrate or
Consular Officer before whom it is made;
(b) If the defendant or the person accused, as the case may be, had an opportunity by
himself or his agent to cross-examine the witness;
(c) if the deposition was made in the course of a criminal proceeding on, proof, that the
deposition was made in the presence of the person accused,

and it shall not be necessary in any case to prove the signature or official character of the
person appearing to have signed any such deposition and a certificate by such person that the
defendant or the person accused had an opportunity of cross-examining the witness and that
the deposition if made in a criminal proceeding, was made in the presence of the person
accused shall, unless the contrary is proved, be sufficient evidence that he had that
opportunity and that it was so made.

15B. Special provisions relating to employees abroad of companies and motor vehciles
This Act shall apply :

(i) in the case of employees who are persons recruited by companies registered in India
and working as such abroad, and
(ii) persons sent for work abroad along with motor vehicles registered under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) as drivers, helpers, mechanics, cleaners or other
employees, subject to the following modifications, namely :-

(1) The notice of the accident, and the claim for the compensation may be served on the local
agent of the company or the local agent of the owner of the motor vehicle, in the country of
accident, as the of case may be

(2) In the case of death of the employee in respect of whom the provisions of. this section
shall apply, the claim for compensation shall be made within one year after the news of the
death has been received by the claimant:

Provided that the Commissioner may entertain any claim for compensation in. any case
notwithstanding that the claim had not been preferred in due time as provided in this sub-
section, if he is satisfied that the failure so to prefer the claim was due to sufficient cause.
(3) Where an injured employee is discharged or left behind in any part of India or in any
other country any depositions taken by any Judge or Magistrate in that part or by any
Consular Officer in the foreign country and transmitted by the person by whom they are
taken to the Central Government or any State Government shall, in any proceedings for
enforcing the claims, be admissible in evidence

(a) if the deposition is authenticated by the signature of the Judge, Magistrate or Consular
Officer before whom it is made;

(b) if the defendant or the person accused, as the case may be, had an opportunity by himself
or his agent to cross-examine the witness;

(c) if the deposition was made in the course of a criminal proceeding, on proof that the
deposition was made in the presence of the person accused, and it shall not be necessary in
any case to prove the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed
any such deposition and a certificate by such person that the defendant or the person accused
had an opportunity of cross-examining the witless and that the deposition if made in a
criminal proceeding was made in the presence of the person accused shall, unless the contrary
is proved, be sufficient evidence that he had that opportunity and that it was so made.

Special provisions regarding the notice and claim as provided under Sec. 15, 15-A and
15-B with respect to the employee employed:

(i) as a seaman on the ship; or

(ii) as a member of crew of an aircraft; or
(iii) by companies registered in India and working abroad; or
(iv) abroad along with motor vehicles registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1908 as
drivers, helpers, mechanics, cleaners or other employees are as follows:

I. Service of Notice According to Sec. 15(1), the notice of the accident and the claim for
compensation by the seaman is served on the master of the ship as if he were the
employer. But where the accident happens and the disablement commenced on board
of the ship, it is not necessary for any seaman to give any notice of the accident.
Similarly, according to Sec. 15-A, if the person injured is a member of the
crew of the aircraft, then the notice of accident is served on the captain of the aircraft
as if he were the employer. But if the accident happened and the disablement
 commenced on board of the aircraft, then it is not necessary for any member of the
crew to give notice of the accident.
Similarly, according to Sec. 15-B, the person recruited by companies
registered in India and working as such abroad or persons sent for work abroad along
with motor vehicles registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as drivers, helpers,
mechanics, cleaners or other employees may be injured in the course of employment.
In that case the notice of accident and claim for compensation is served on the local
agent of the company, or the local agent of the owner of the motor vehice, in the
country of accident, as the case may be.
II. Time period for making claim by the claimant

The claim for compensation before the Commissioner must be made within one year
after the news of the death has been received by the claimant in case of the:

(i) death of a master or seaman [Sec. 15(2)1, or

(ii) death of the captain or other member of the crew [Sec. 15-A(2)];
(iii) death of the employee recruited by companies or sent on motor or vehicles
registered in India but work abroad [Sec. 15-B(2)1.

Claim to be made within eighteen months A claim for compensation by the claimant must
be made before the commissioner within eighteen months where

(i) the ship has been or is deemed to have been lost with all hands, [Sec. 15(2)]; or
(ii) the aircraft has been or is deemed to have been lost with, all hands [Sec. 15-A(2)].

The period of eighteen months is counted from the day on which the aircraft is deemed to
have been lost.

III. Deposition of injured persons

An injured master or seaman, an injured captain or other member of the crew; or an injured
employee recruited by companies and motor vehicles registered in India but working abroad,
may be left behind in any part of India or in any other country. In that case the deposition of
the injured person may be taken by

(i) any Judge or Magistrate in that part of India; or

(ii) by any Consular Officer in the foreign country.
The person who takes deposition transmits the same to the Central Government or any State
Government. Such depositions are admissible in evidence in any proceedings for enforcing
the claim if-

(a) the deposition is authenticated by the signature of the judge, Magistrate or Consular
Officer before whom it is made;
(b) if the defendant or the person accused, as the case may be, had an opportunity by
himself or his agent to cross-examine the witness
(c) if the deposition was made in the course of a criminal proceeding, on proof that the
deposition was made in the presence of the person accused.

According to Sec. 15(3) 15A(3) and 15B(3), it is not necessary in any case to prove the
signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed any such deposition.

IV. Entertainment of claim after the due time

A claim for compensation may be entertained by the Commissioner after due time if he is
satisfied that the failure to prefer the claim was due to a sufficient cause.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

V.K. Kharbanda & M.P. Shrivastav, Industrial Employment (Standing

Orders) Act, 1946
K.D. Shrivastva, Commentaries on the Payment of Wages Act, 1936
K.D. Shrivastva, Commentaries on the Minimum Wages Act, 1948
S.B. Rao, Law and Practice on Minimum Wages
Meenu Paul, Labour and Industrial Law