The High Court · 2009

Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellants : Mr. Raman Sethi, Advocate, for the appellants. For the respondent : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The appellants have assailed the impugned award dated

21.2.2009 passed by Commissioner, under the Workmen(cid:146)s Compensation Act, 1923 in case No. SIM-NO.199(Fatal)/08, titled as Smt. Sarita and others versus HPPWD and another awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 3,73,800/- to the claimants. Interest @ 12% was directed to be paid on the same w.e.f. 23.8.2008 i.e. the date of filling of the application for compensation upto 21.2.2009 the date of the award. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The claimants have the appeal seeking further enhancement of the awarded amount on the ground that the Commissioner (Workmen Compensation) erred in not awarding the interest and penalty on the amount due, in accordance with Section 4(A)3(a) and 3(b) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The claimants filed an application under Section 22 and Section 4(A) of the Act claiming compensation on account of death of Shri Geeta Ram, (predecessor-in-interest) who was engaged as a Beldar by the respondent and posted at Sub Division Sainj, on Chala-Balag road. While on duty and in the course of employment he died in an accident on 1.10.2007. F.I.R. (Ext. PW-1) dated

2.10.2007 was also registered. The petition was not opposed by the respondents as no reply was filed. Infact Shri B.S. Mehta, Assistant Engineer, respondents employee, in his deposition dated 30.12.2008 fully supported the claimant(cid:146)s case and deposed that deceased Shri Geeta Ram was engaged with the respondent-State and while on duty and in the course of employment he died on 1.10.2007. There was no dispute about the employment of Shri Geeta Ram with the State and his death having taken place in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The amount due and payable to the claimants, under the Act, thus was also not in 3 dispute. The Respondent-State was under a statutory obligation to pay the amount within the time period stipulated under the Act. Hence in my considered view the Commissioner erred in not awarding interest from the date of the accident but awarding the same from the date of filing of the petition.

While taking this view I am supported by the ratio of law laid down by this Court in FAO(WCA) No. 270 of 2002, titled Sita Ram versus Satvinder Singh & another, decided on 30.5.2008. This Court in Meena Kumari versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others, 2007 ACJ 2547 has also held as under: (cid:147)3. Vide orders dated 9.8.1996, the Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 92,884, which admittedly has been paid to the petitioner on 17.10.1996. However, the dispute in the present petition pertains to non-imposition of penalty in terms of Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen(cid:146)s Compensation Act, 1923. Perusal of the impugned order makes it abundantly clear that the liability for compensation was not in dispute at any point of time. It is also not in dispute that the deceased employee would not be disentitled for compensation on any of the grounds as mentioned in section 3 (1) of the Act.

In this view of the matter, the petitioner is fully entitled for her statutory entitlement of penalty. As already noticed hereinabove, as a model employer, it was the respondent Board, who had of its own reported the matter for award of compensation. However, sections 3 & 4 enjoin a duty upon the respondent Board to have quantified the undisputed amount and deposited the same with the Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioner got her compensation 4 only after a period of four years. The delay in adjudication is not attributable to the petitioner.

The respondent Board is not a private employer but is a State and is expected to be a model employer. It is enjoined with the duty to implement the beneficient provisions of the Act in its true letter and spirit and to make payment of the compensation as soon as it fell due. It is undisputed that the employee had died as a result of the injuries sustained in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, which is undisputed. Therefore, the respondent Board was enjoined with the duty and an obligation to pay compensation due under the Act as soon as it fell due---Ram Dulari Kalia v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, 1987 ACJ 258 (HP) and Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC).(cid:148) The respondents were aware of the application filed by the claimants seeking payment of compensation, interest and penalty. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions as also the attending circumstances, it is directed that the claimants would also be entitled for payment of compensation under Section 4(A)(3)(b) by way of penalty to the extent of 15 % of the awarded amount. Thus the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate awarded by the Commissioner Workmen from the date of the accident up to the date of deposit/realization and also the amount of penalty. From the record it could not be ascertained as to when the awarded amount was deposited by the respondents. Hence the exact amount of compensation has not been worked out. 5 The impugned award is modified to the aforesaid extent. June 3, 2009 (PK) (Sanjay Karol), Judge.