U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Lko. Thru. Managing Director and Another vs Smt. Sunita @ Rambeti

The delay has been explained on the ground of procedural formalities, internal correspondence and deposit-related issues. Cause shown in the affidavit filed

¶13

2

¶14

FAFOD No. - 187 of 2025

¶15

in support of the delay condonation application is sufficient to the satisfaction of the court.

¶16

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay is condoned.

¶17

Order on appeal

¶18

Heard Sri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶19

The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and award dated 30.03.2022 passed in Case No. 25/32/56/2010-2011, Computerized Case No. D2010103300136, Smt. Sunita alias Rambeti vs. U.P. Power Corporation and another, by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Hardoi under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, whereby a compensation of Rs. 6,11,/958/- along with 6% annual interest has been awarded in favour of the respondent.

¶20

The facts of the case are that One Raju, son of Ram Vilas was employed as a petrolman in the Electricity Department, Hardoi, and was posted at the 33/11 KP substation in Pali. on 6-11-2003 at at about 11:30 a.m., he suffered an accidental electric shock while dicharging his duty on an 11 KV feeder near village Daulatiyapur. He subsequently died while undergoing treatment at the District Government Hospital, Hardoi, on 14-11-2003. The accident was reported to the concerned police station by Mr. S.C. Tiwari, Junior Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division I, Shahabad, District Hardoi. The applicant/respondent is the married wife of the deceased Raju and, after death of her husband, she repeatedly appealed to the defendants for compensation. However,

¶21

3

¶22

FAFOD No. - 187 of 2025

¶23

she was only given empty assurances and has yet to receive compensation from the defendants, despite their full responsibility. Due to repeated assurances from the department she did not preferred any suit. The applicant/respondent and her sons, Pankaj Kumar, Lala, Sachin, and daughters, Pooja and Chandni, were completely dependent on the deceased Raju and have been living with her since death of the deceased. Allegedly running from pillar to post, the respondent ultimately filed a claim petition on 29.11.2010 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Employees’ Compensation Act before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Hardoi.

¶24

Considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Commissioner passed the award dated 30.03.2022 assessing the monthly wages of the deceased Rs. 6,365/- and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,11,/958/- along with 6% annual interest in favour of the respondent.

¶25

After about a lapse of two months, the appellant preferred a review application on 23.05.2022, which came to be rejected as not maintainable by order dated 21.02.2024.

¶26

Thereafter, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant on 31.05.2025 with a delay of 1,066 days.

¶27

The only arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim petition was filed after a lapse of about seven years from the date of the incident and hence the learned Commissioner ought not to have entertained claim petition which is filed after a

¶28

4

¶29

FAFOD No. - 187 of 2025

¶30

long delay. No other substantial ground has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶32

It is not disputed that the deceased was working under the appellant–department and died due to electrocution while discharging his official duties.

¶33

It is also indicated from the material on record that the respondent had been waiting and allegedly running from pillar to post for about seven years, seeking compensation from the department and only repeated assurance from the department was given. Thereafter, she instituted the claim petition.

¶34

The contention that the claim petition was delayed cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts of the present case, particularly when the employer failed to discharge its statutory obligation in a timely manner. The appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own inaction in not extending compensation to the dependents of its deceased employee.

¶35

In the present matter, it is evident that the appellant itself has approached this Court with a delay of more than 1000 days and has simultaneously sought condonation of the said delay. Despite this, the same appellant has taken the plea that the respondent/claimant approached the competent authority after a delay and that the court below failed to consider the same while deciding the claim in favour of the claimant. Such a stand taken by the appellant is wholly inconsistent and untenable in law. A party cannot

¶36

5

¶37

FAFOD No. - 187 of 2025

¶38

be permitted to take mutually contradictory pleas, seeking condonation of delay in its own appeal while objecting to the alleged delay on the part of the respondent.

¶39

It is surprising that the appellant, has raised the plea that the respondent-claimant approached the authority with delay in filing the claim petition and also raised the plea that the court below did not considered the same while deciding claim in favour of the claimant. The record clearly demonstrates that the claimant was diligently pursuing her remedy from the very beginning by repeatedly approaching the concerned authorities and making earnest efforts to seek relief. However, after being compelled by the inaction of the authorities and being made to run from pillar to post, the claimant widow who was left with no other choice but to file the claim petition before the learned Commissioner.

¶40

It is also evident that the husband of the claimant died due to electrocution, and the claim was pursued by the claimant in pursuit of lawful compensation. The learned court below, after considering the material on record, adjudicated the matter on merits and passed the award in favour of the claimant.

¶41

The mere technical irregularities, if any, cannot be permitted to defeat the substantive rights of the claimant, particularly in a case involving compensation arising out of the death of the claimant’s husband who died due to electrocution while discharging his official duties.

¶42

Once the learned Commissioner, considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, has

¶43

6

¶44

FAFOD No. - 187 of 2025

¶45

awarded compensation and the review application has been rejected, and further the only argument about the institution of claim has been found to be untenable. A bare perusal of impugned order shows that the order is complete, just and proper. Hence, no reason is made out which calls for interference in the impugned award.

¶46

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the judgment and award dated 30.03.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act.

¶47

Being sans merit, the appeal is accordingly, dismissed . The appellant is directed to comply the judgment and award dated 30.03.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act and the compensation amount shall be paid to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today.

¶48

(Prashant Kumar,J.)

¶49

February 27, 2026 Raj

¶50

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Lko. Thru. Managing Director and Another v. Smt. Sunita @ Rambeti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Lko. Thru. Managing Director and Another v. Smt. Sunita @ Rambeti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramdayal Vs Smt. Geeta and Another

Arti Tripathi and Others vs Zafar Alam and 2 Others

Uday Bhan Singh vs Ram Raj Singh and 2 Others

Dheeraj Kumar Tiwari and Another Vs Pratima Gupta and 2 Others

Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow Thru. Secy. vs Ambrish Bansal and Others

Kailash and Another vs Union of India Thru. General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi