Partly allowed

Dharam Pal Singh v. Up State Road Transport and Ors.

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2019FAFO/1017/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Apex Court allowed the appeal partly, holding that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner erred in not addressing undisclosed medical expenses. The Court directed the respondent to deposit an additional Rs. 15,000 with interest while upholding the original disability award.

What did the court decide?

An additional lump sum of Rs.15,000 with statutory interest to be deposited within 12 weeks.

Dharam Pal Singh Vs Up State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1017 of 1995 Appellant :- Dharam Pal Singh Respondent :- Up State Road Transport And Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Om Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Bhual Vishwakarma,Sunil Kumar Mishra

¶2

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and order impugned.

¶4

By way of this appeal, the appellant has felt aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.9.1995 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1923'), Meerut in Case No. 41 of 1994 awarding a sum of Rs.29,196/- with interest at the rate of 12%.

¶5

The undisputed facts are that the appellantclaimant suffered employment injury while working as conductor. He sustained 30% disability. Though he gave notice, the employer did not pay heed to the same and, hence, he filed claim before Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Meerut. Respondent gave a vague reply of denial but accepted that injured was employed by them.

¶6

Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in Eregowda alias vasu Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, AIR 2018 SC 1466 . The only area in which this Court finds that there should be enhancement is that claimant had incurred medical expenses. The claim petition was filed for claiming compensation. The Commissioner in his entire order did not grant any amount for medical expenses though there were several bills attached. There is not even a whisper of those bills which amount was not paid by the owner or the employer which would be payable by the employer to grant the said relief also.

¶7

The submission of Sri S.K. Mishra, counsel for the respondent, is that penalty and interest have also been granted. I am unable to accept the said submission as from 1989, the employee was demanding compensation which was never granted by the U.P.S.R.T.C. except giving a sum of

¶8

Rs.500/- which was not in consonance with Section 4A of the Act, 1923.

¶9

Section 4 of Act, 1923 relates to amount of compensation and how calculation should be made. Section 2 (a) of Section 4 has modified the earlier section. The employee shall be reimbursed the actual medical expenses incurred during the course of employment which has also not been paid by the employer.

¶10

In that view of the matter, looking to the xerox copies of the bills attached, a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- additional with statutory rate of interest will have to be made good by the respondent-U.P.S.R.T.C.

¶11

The perversity has crept in and, therefore, the submission of Sri S.K. Mishra that the judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) would apply cannot be made applicable. However, as far as quantum granted namely considering the fracture and the disability, the disability pointed out by the Medical board is 30% which has been considered by the Commissioner and the other factor has also been considered, hence, cannot be disturbed and this Court is in agreement with Sri Mishra on that ground.

¶12

I am in agreement with Sri S.K. Mishra, that judgment in Eregowda alias vasu (Supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as there the driver had lost his job.

¶13

Hence, the appeal is partly allowed. Judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount of Rs.15,000/- with statutory interest as per Act, 1923 be deposited within 12 weeks from today.

¶14

Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶15

This Court is thankful to both the counsels for getting matter of 1995 disposed off.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.8.2019 DKS

Dharam Pal Singh v. Up State Road Transport and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Pal Singh v. Up State Road Transport and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Kanpur Vs Kamal Nain Singh and Others

M/S Varanasi Tourist Service Vs U.P.S.R.T.C. and Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Padma Devi and Others

Surya Mani Dwivedi Vs Jai Prakash Pandey and Others

M/S Narendra Kumar Vs National Thermal Power Corp.

Girish Chandra Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others