Lajjawanti Wd/O Roopchand and ors. Vs. Haryana Roadways - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........to succeed. it has not been disputed before me that the workman was drawing a salary of rs. 1430.32 p. at the time of accident. the relevant factor for determining the compensation is 178.49 as provided in schedule iv of the workmen's compensation act. the workman was 42 years of age at the time of his death. applying this factor, the total compensation payable to the workman comes to rs. 1,00, 118.61 p.7. now coming to the question of payment of interest as well as penalty, i find that under section 4a of the workmen's compensation act, it was the duty to pay the compensation as soon as it fell due. in cases, where the employer does not accept liability for compensation to the extent claimed, the employer is bound to make provisional payment based on the event of liability which the employer accepts, and such payment is to be deposited with the commissioner, or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. however, in this case, the employer has neither made payment to the claimants nor made any provisional deposit with the commissioner. no justification has been shown as to why payment was not made.....

Judgment:

ORDER

V.K. Jhanji,J.

1. This is claimants' appeal directed against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Deceased, Roop Chand, was working as a Driver with the respondent. During the course of his employment with the respondent-Haryana Roadways, he died while on duty. The respondent did not pay any compensation to the claimants although the deceased died during the course of his employment with the respondent. This led to the filing of a claim application by the claimants before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Ballabhgarh.

2. The claim of the claimants was denied by the 1 respondent who stated that the workman had not died due to any disease which could be said to be connected with his employment. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Commissioner :

1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present application? OPR

2. Whether the applicants are (sic) application under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not, maintainable? OPR.

3. Whether the applicants are entitled for claim compensation. If so to what amount?

4. Relief.

After appreciating the evidence on record, the Commissioner found that the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present application as the deceased workman died as a result of an accident which took place during the course of his employment. A sum of Rs. 71,396/- was awarded to the claimants. In addition to this, a sum of Rs. 8604/- was also awarded as penalty. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 80,000/- was ordered to be paid within 30 days from the date of passing of the said order, which was so passed on August 2, 1990. The claimants being dissatisfied with the order of the Commissioner, have come to this Court by way of present appeal.

3. The respondent has not preferred any appeal against any of the findings given by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the compensation was awarded by taking the basic pay of the workman-deceased to be Rs. 1380/-, whereas as per written statement of the respondent, the pay drawn at the time of death of the workman was Rs. 1430.32 P. He has, therefore, contended that the claimants are entitled to the enhancement of compensation. He also submitted that though the accident took place on (sic) 30, 1986, yet the compensation was not paid till the filing of this appeal. He has, therefore, submitted that the claimants are not only entitled to statutory interest at the rate of 6% per annum, but also penalty which should not be less than 50 per cent on the amount awarded as compensation.

5. Learned State counsel has submitted that no interference is called for by this Court as there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to succeed. It has not been disputed before me that the workman was drawing a salary of Rs. 1430.32 P. at the time of accident. The relevant factor for determining the compensation is 178.49 as provided in Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The workman was 42 years of age at the time of his death. Applying this factor, the total compensation payable to the workman comes to Rs. 1,00, 118.61 P.

7. Now coming to the question of payment of interest as well as penalty, I find that under Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, it was the duty to pay the compensation as soon as it fell due. In cases, where the employer does not accept liability for compensation to the extent claimed, the employer is bound to make provisional payment based on the event of liability which the employer accepts, and such payment is to be deposited with the Commissioner, or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. However, in this case, the employer has neither made payment to the claimants nor made any provisional deposit with the Commissioner. No justification has been shown as to why payment was not made expeditiously. The Commissioner did not award any interest and imposed a penalty of Rs. 8604/- only. The provisions of the Act are meant to give protection to the helpless workmen or the dependants of the deceased workmen. Compensation payable cannot be withheld without showing any sufficient cause. As far as facts of this case are concerned, I am of the view that since there was a considerable delay in making payment of the amount of compensation, which was made only after filing of this appeal, the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of six per cent from the date of accident till the date of deposit, and penalty of 25 percent of the compensation amount, which is determined as Rs. 25,000/-. The respondents are directed to pay a total sum of Rs. 1,25, 118,61 P, ie. Rs. 1,00, 118.61 P. towards compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as penalty. The respondents are also directed to pay interest at the rate of six per cent on the amount of compensation from the date of accident. The amount shall be paid within two months from today. The claimants shall also be entitled to receive costs which are assessed at Rs. 500/-.