B.G.P. Lorry Service Vs. the State of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Madras and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderrajagopala ayyangar, j. 1. the order now sought to be restrained and quashed is for the recovery of a sum which was decreed to a claimant in regard to workmen's compensation. the only dependant entitled to make a claim was the widow of the deceased worker and sought recovery of the amount due to her under the statute before the commissioner. an order was passed on 20th december 1954 determining the compensation payable at rs. 1200 together with rs. 14 for costs. 2. this amount the petitioner paid in person to the widow the sole claimant on 23rd april 1955, and it is not in dispute, that the money was paid and the claim thus discharged. 3. proceedings were however taken by the commissioner in may 1955, against the petitioner for the recovery of the sum once again on the ground that a payment to the claimant was not a discharge, and that under section 8, until the amount is deposited the liability to pay persists. 4. without entering into the question as to whether the provisions of section 8 are directory or mandatory i am of the opinion that as the proceeds of the recovery are to be held for the benefit of the claimant the authorities cannot start recovery proceedings without being moved by a party who has not been paid. 5. the writ petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.

1. The order now sought to be restrained and quashed is for the recovery of a sum which was decreed to a claimant in regard to workmen's compensation. The only dependant entitled to make a claim was the widow of the deceased worker and sought recovery of the amount due to her under the statute before the Commissioner. An order was passed on 20th December 1954 determining the compensation payable at Rs. 1200 together with Rs. 14 for costs.

2. This amount the petitioner paid in person to the widow the sole claimant on 23rd April 1955, and it is not in dispute, that the money was paid and the claim thus discharged.

3. Proceedings were however taken by the Commissioner in May 1955, against the petitioner for the recovery of the sum once again on the ground that a payment to the claimant was not a discharge, and that under Section 8, until the amount is deposited the liability to pay persists.

4. Without entering into the question as to whether the provisions of Section 8 are directory or mandatory I am of the opinion that as the proceeds of the recovery are to be held for the benefit of the claimant the authorities cannot start recovery proceedings without being moved by a party who has not been paid.

5. The writ petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute. No costs.