BILASPUR fC.G.) v. Kheman Lal Dewangan

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.CNo. 16^of2008 f6>^£>% APPELLANT Chandrika Prasad Chandrakar RESPONDENTS Kheman Lal Dewangan and another VERSUS (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present : Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No.1 Shri A.K. Athaley, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ORAL AWARD (Passedon09.01.2012) The instant daimant's appeal is directed against the award dated 19.09.2008 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Durg (for short 'the Commissioner') in case No. 145/WCAct/NF/2006. Personal injury is caused to Chandrika Prasad Chandrakar i.e. appellanVclaimant by accident on 30.03.2006 arising out of and in the course of his employment. As against the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- claimed by the appellanVclaimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident on 30.03.2006, the Commissioner awarded a Rs.50,832/- against respondent

^....^J ^^- .^••^ No.2/insurance company and penalty to the extent of 50% of the amount of compensation against respondent No.1.

The Commissioner, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held : appellant sustained multiple injuries resulting into permanent disability and loss of earning capacity to the extent of 25%; assessed the amount of Rs.1,01,664/- terms of Section 4 (1) (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act of 1923'); deducted 50% of it on the premise that other truck has dashed the vehicle being driven by the appellant at the time of accident and report of accident has also been lodged against that vehicle; and awarded Rs.50,832/- against respondent No.2/the New India Insurance Company Limited.

Shri Gautam Khetrapal with Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued: there is no provision in the Act of 1923 to reduce the compensation on the ground of involvement of other vehicle in the accident, and therefore, the award to the above extent is not sustainable in law.

On the other hand, Shri A.KAthaley, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 supported the award impugned. ^-^.^ /f&^\ i ":'^ ^/

I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned including records of Commissioner.

The substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court is whether under the provisions of the Act of 1923, the Commissioner is empowered to reduce the amount of compensation payable to the employee on account of involvement of other vehicle in the accident?

Section 3 of the Act of 1923 defines employer's liability for compensation. As per Section 3, if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and inthe course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 could not point out any provision justifying deduction of 50% of compensation amount by the Commissioner on account of involvement of any other vehicie in the accident. It appears the 50% of amount of compensation on account of involvement of other vehicle in the accident has been deducted by the Commissioner erroneously placing its reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in M.A.NO. 1344/2007 filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In my opinion, such deduction is not permissible under the provisions of the Act of 1923 and the above order is not sustainable in law. ..-,,...-.^ ^ ^" ^ ^'^ .^' 1

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the substantial question of law is answered in appellant's favour. The appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is awarded the entire amount of compensation of Rs.1,01,664/- against respondent No.2, as compensation, i.e., Rs.50,832/- over and above the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner. The above amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. The amount is payable by respondent No.2.

Therespondent No.2 / the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted 3 months' time to deposit the enhanced amount compensation before concerned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act.