Karuna Jha Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/515743
SubjectElectricity
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnMar-12-2001
Case NumberCWJC No. 4091 of 2000
Judge M.Y. Eqbal, J.
Reported inII(2001)ACC655
ActsElectricity (Supply) Act, 1943 - Sections 79; Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 4-A(3)
AppellantKaruna Jha
RespondentBihar State Electricity Board and ors.
Appellant Advocate A.K. Sahani, Adv.
Respondent Advocate I. Sen Choudhary, Adv.
DispositionWrit application allowed
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - for better appreciation clause 3 (ii) is reproduced hereinbelow :3(ii) employees drawing basic pay exceeding rs. after this date the dependents of the deceased shall be free to invest or use the amount in any manner they like.m.y. eqbal, j.1. the question arises for consideration is as to what amount the claimant is entitled in the event of death of an employee of bihar state electricity board, who met fatal accident arising out of and in the course of employment.2. in the instant case the husband of the petitioner was a permanent employee of the board and was working as switch board operator in the district of hazaribagh. he died at the age of 44 years while on duty and at the time of his death his monthly salary was rs. 2645/-. the petitioner was paid cash payment of rs. 70,216/- only as compensation under section 4a(3) of the workmen compensation act, 1923. the petitioner was also paid a sum of rs. 14,767/- as gratuity.the grievance of the petitioner is that she is entitled to cash payment of rs. 2.00 lakhs as compensation under the scheme framed by the board and also family pension in accordance with the rules.3. a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the board, wherein the death of the employee in harness on account of accident on 6.3.1990 has been admitted. it is stated that the board has framed a scheme under which an employee drawing basic pay upto rs. 1600/- per month would be entitled to a sum of rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation and if the deceased-employee was drawing basic pay of more than rs. 1600/- per month then the dependent will get rs. 2.00 lakhs as cash relief, which shall be inclusive of compensation payable under the workmen compensation act. however, it is stated that since the petitioner never applied for the payment of compensation in proper proforma within the stipulated period, her claim became barred by limitation.4. i have heard mr. a.k. sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and mrs. i. sen choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent-board.5. it is the admitted case of the parties that the board framed a scheme in exercise of power conferred under section 79 of the electricity (supply) act, 1943, namely, accident compensation scheme. a copy of the scheme has been annexed as annexure 2 to the writ application. clause 3 of the scheme provides that in case of deceased-employee draw ing basic pay of rs. 1600/- per month, a cash relief of rs. 1.00 lakh shall be paid by the board. this amount of cash relief shall be in addition to the compensation payable under the workmen compensation act, 1923. similarly, in case of deceased-employee drawing basic pay exceeding rs. 1600/- per month, the dependent of such employee shall be paid a sum of rs. 2.00 lakhs as cash relief which shall be inclusive of compensation payable under the workmen compensation act. for better appreciation clause 3 (ii) is reproduced hereinbelow :--'3(ii) employees drawing basic pay exceeding rs. 7600/- per month. --where the basic pay of the deceased- employee exceeds rs. 1600/- per month, the dependents of such employees shall be paid a sum of rs. 2 lakhs as cash relief which shall be inclusive of the compensation payable under the workmen's compensation act. but if compensation under the workmen's compensation act exceeds rs. 2 lakhs, no further cash relief shall be paid by the board. if the deceased-employee is not covered under the workmen's compensation act, a cash relief of rs. 2 lakhs snail be paid by the board.'6. as noticed above, the petitioner has been paid rs. 70,216/- only as compensation amount under section 4a(3) of the workmen's compensation act. it is stated in the counter-affidavit that so far additional compensation under the accident compensation scheme is concerned, the petitioner never applied for the same in proper proforma within the stipulated period and for that reason her claim for additional compensation has been rejected by the assistant electrical engineer, hazaribagh. a copy of rejection order has been communicated to the petitioner, vide letter no. 280 dated 29.8.1997. a copy of the same has been annexed as annexure 9 to the writ application. the letter, shows that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the claim was submitted after the expiry of two months.7. i have gone through the provisions of the accident compensation scheme (annexure 2). clause 5 of the scheme provides the procedure for payment of cash relief under the scheme. clause 5 reads as under :--'5. procedure for payment.--the procedure for filing claim for cash relief/additional amount under this scheme shall be governed by the bihar pension rules. payment is to be released to the dependent of the deceased-employees as per nomination filed by the employee. nomination given in the g.p.f. shall be deemed to be a nomination under this scheme. the payment procedure will be governed as per bihar pension rule but the amount of cash relief/additional amount payable underthis scheme shall be deposited in a bank or post office or unit trust of india or any other government financial institution etc. in such a manner that the dependents of the deceased are able to get only the interest on a monthly basis and are not able to get the principal amount in cash for at least the next three years from the date of death of the deceased-employee. after this date the dependents of the deceased shall be free to invest or use the amount in any manner they like. the director of accounts of the board shall operate this scheme who will issue necessary authority letter in this regard after obtaining sanction from the secretary.' from bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that a duty is cast upon the board to release to the dependents of the deceased-employee the cash relief and no limitation has been provided for filing claim for cash relief.8. it has also not been disputed that in 1997 the board introduced a new provision in the matter of submission of claim prescribing the procedure with regard to liabilities of the employee and payment thereof. this was communicated by the secretary of the board to all the heads of the department. it is stated that the benefits under the scheme are obligatory on the part of the employer and are to be sanctioned and paid immediately after the death of the employee. the new procedure provides that the accident report to be sent to the electrical inspector within 48 hours of the accident and also information should be sent to the general manager-cum-chief engineer/electrical superintending engineer and the secretary of the board. it further states that immediately after the accident the electrical executive engineer shall send a copy of the proforma enclosed to the family members of the deceased workman with request to return the same within ten days. on receipt of the application from the family members the electrical executive engineer shall send the same with all the relevant papers alongwith the report to the electrical superintending engineer, who in his turn, after recording his certificate, send the same to the general manager for sanction.9. admittedly, alt these procedures have not been followed by the respondent-board. the claim of the petitioner was rejected merely on the ground that it was submitted before him after two months. the reason recorded by the respondent-board is, therefore, highly illegal, arbitrary and capricious.10. admittedly, the petitioner wasdrawing salary of rs. 2,645/- i.e. in excess of rs. 1600/- per month. the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to cash relief of rs. 2.00 lakhs inclusive of compensation payable under the compensation act. as noticed above, the petitioner has been paid only rs. 70,216/- as cash relief out of rs. 2.00 lakhs. the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to receive a further sum of rs. 1,29,784/- as cash relief besides the other benefits under the scheme.11. now the question arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to interest on the compensation amount. admittedly, by office order dated 16.12.1991 the respondent accorded sanction for payment of rs. 70,216/- only as compensation under section 4-a(3) of the workmen's compensation act, 1923. section 4-a (3) of the workmen's compensation act reads as under :--'4-a (3) where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this act within one month from the date it fell due, the commissioner may direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the amount due together with, if in the opinion of the commissioner there is no justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty.'12. in the facts of the present case and also the averment made in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that no justification has been made out by the board for the delayed sanction of the amount of compensation under the said act. in such circumstances, the claimant is not only entitled to interest but also penalty which can be recovered from the employer. however, without imposing any penalty, i am of the view that if the amount of cash relief inclusive of compensation under the workmen's compensation act is paid to the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum, that will meet the ends of justice. the respondent-board is directed to make payment of rs. 2.00 lakhs as cash relief inclusive of rs. 70,216/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death of the deceased-employee till payment. the board is also directed to release all other benefits including family pension, gratuity as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.13. in the result, this writ application is accordingly allowed but no orderas to costs.14. writ application allowed.
Judgment:

M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. The question arises for consideration is as to what amount the claimant is entitled in the event of death of an employee of Bihar State Electricity Board, who met fatal accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

2. In the instant case the husband of the petitioner was a permanent employee of the Board and was working as Switch Board Operator in the District of Hazaribagh. He died at the age of 44 years while on duty and at the time of his death his monthly salary was Rs. 2645/-. The petitioner was paid cash payment of Rs. 70,216/- only as compensation under Section 4A(3) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The petitioner was also paid a sum of Rs. 14,767/- as gratuity.The grievance of the petitioner is that she is entitled to cash payment of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as compensation under the scheme framed by the Board and also family pension in accordance with the rules.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board, wherein the death of the employee in harness on account of accident on 6.3.1990 has been admitted. It is stated that the Board has framed a scheme under which an employee drawing basic pay upto Rs. 1600/- per month would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation and if the deceased-employee was drawing basic pay of more than Rs. 1600/- per month then the dependent will get Rs. 2.00 lakhs as cash relief, which shall be inclusive of compensation payable under the Workmen Compensation Act. However, it is stated that since the petitioner never applied for the payment of compensation in proper proforma within the stipulated period, her claim became barred by limitation.

4. I have heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent-Board.

5. It is the admitted case of the parties that the Board framed a scheme in exercise of power conferred under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1943, namely, Accident Compensation Scheme. A copy of the scheme has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ application. Clause 3 of the scheme provides that in case of deceased-employee draw ing basic pay of Rs. 1600/- per month, a cash relief of Rs. 1.00 lakh shall be paid by the Board. This amount of cash relief shall be in addition to the compensation payable under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Similarly, in case of deceased-employee drawing basic pay exceeding Rs. 1600/- per month, the dependent of such employee shall be paid a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as cash relief which shall be inclusive of compensation payable under the Workmen Compensation Act. For better appreciation Clause 3 (ii) is reproduced hereinbelow :--

'3(ii) Employees drawing basic pay exceeding Rs. 7600/- per month. --Where the basic pay of the deceased- employee exceeds Rs. 1600/- per month, the dependents of such employees shall be paid a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as cash relief which shall be inclusive of the compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. But if compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act exceeds Rs. 2 lakhs, no further cash relief shall be paid by the Board. If the deceased-employee is not covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act, a cash relief of Rs. 2 lakhs snail be paid by the Board.'

6. As noticed above, the petitioner has been paid Rs. 70,216/- only as compensation amount under Section 4A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that so far additional compensation under the Accident Compensation Scheme is concerned, the petitioner never applied for the same in proper proforma within the stipulated period and for that reason her claim for additional compensation has been rejected by the Assistant Electrical Engineer, Hazaribagh. A copy of rejection order has been communicated to the petitioner, vide letter No. 280 dated 29.8.1997. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure 9 to the writ application. The letter, shows that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the claim was submitted after the expiry of two months.

7. I have gone through the provisions of the Accident Compensation Scheme (Annexure 2). Clause 5 of the scheme provides the procedure for payment of cash relief under the scheme. Clause 5 reads as under :--

'5. Procedure for payment.--The procedure for filing claim for cash relief/additional amount under this scheme shall be governed by the Bihar Pension Rules.

Payment is to be released to the dependent of the deceased-employees as per nomination filed by the employee. Nomination given in the G.P.F. shall be deemed to be a nomination under this scheme. The payment procedure will be governed as per Bihar Pension Rule but the amount of cash relief/additional amount payable underthis scheme shall be deposited in a bank or post office or Unit Trust of India or any other Government financial institution etc. in such a manner that the dependents of the deceased are able to get only the interest on a monthly basis and are not able to get the principal amount in cash for at least the next three years from the date of death of the deceased-employee. After this date the dependents of the deceased shall be free to invest or use the amount in any manner they like.

The Director of Accounts of the Board shall operate this scheme who will issue necessary authority letter in this regard after obtaining sanction from the Secretary.'

From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that a duty is cast upon the Board to release to the dependents of the deceased-employee the cash relief and no limitation has been provided for filing claim for cash relief.

8. It has also not been disputed that in 1997 the Board introduced a new provision in the matter of submission of claim prescribing the procedure with regard to liabilities of the employee and payment thereof. This was communicated by the Secretary of the Board to all the Heads of the Department. It is stated that the benefits under the scheme are obligatory on the part of the employer and are to be sanctioned and paid immediately after the death of the employee. The new procedure provides that the accident report to be sent to the Electrical Inspector within 48 hours of the accident and also information should be sent to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer/Electrical Superintending Engineer and the Secretary of the Board. It further states that immediately after the accident the Electrical Executive Engineer shall send a copy of the proforma enclosed to the family members of the deceased workman with request to return the same within ten days. On receipt of the application from the family members the Electrical Executive Engineer shall send the same with all the relevant papers alongwith the report to the Electrical Superintending Engineer, who in his turn, after recording his certificate, send the same to the General Manager for sanction.

9. Admittedly, alt these procedures have not been followed by the respondent-Board. The claim of the petitioner was rejected merely on the ground that it was submitted before him after two months. The reason recorded by the respondent-Board is, therefore, highly illegal, arbitrary and capricious.

10. Admittedly, the petitioner wasdrawing salary of Rs. 2,645/- i.e. in excess of Rs. 1600/- per month. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to cash relief of Rs. 2.00 lakhs inclusive of compensation payable under the Compensation Act. As noticed above, the petitioner has been paid only Rs. 70,216/- as cash relief out of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to receive a further sum of Rs. 1,29,784/- as cash relief besides the other benefits under the scheme.

11. Now the question arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to interest on the compensation amount. Admittedly, by office order dated 16.12.1991 the respondent accorded sanction for payment of Rs. 70,216/- only as compensation under Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Section 4-A (3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act reads as under :--

'4-A (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner may direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the amount due together with, if in the opinion of the Commissioner there is no justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty.'

12. In the facts of the present case and also the averment made in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that no justification has been made out by the Board for the delayed sanction of the amount of compensation under the said Act. In such circumstances, the claimant is not only entitled to interest but also penalty which can be recovered from the employer. However, without imposing any penalty, I am of the view that if the amount of cash relief inclusive of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is paid to the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum, that will meet the ends of justice. The respondent-Board is directed to make payment of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as cash relief inclusive of Rs. 70,216/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of death of the deceased-employee till payment. The Board is also directed to release all other benefits including family pension, gratuity as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

13. In the result, this writ application is accordingly allowed but no orderas to costs.

14. Writ application allowed.