Partly allowed

Mst.Budhwara Bai v. Basant Kumar Dewangan and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2013MA/1049/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court partially allowed an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, affirming justice and finding the employer and insurer jointly liable to pay compensation with interest from the date of accident and a penalty.

What did the court decide?

Respondents shall pay compensation of Rs.1,05,737/- along with simple interest @ 12% per annum from 1.6.1997 till the date of payment, and the employer shall pay Rs.25,000/- as penalty.

Mst.Budhwara Bai Vs Basant Kumar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MA; No. 1049 OF 1999

APPELLANT

(Claimant)

: Mst‘ Budhwarabai

¶6

Versus

¶7

RESPONDENTS

¶8

: Basant Kumar Dewangan

¶9

(Non~app1icants)

¶10

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923

¶11

'Minhaiuddin,

¶12

Single Bench: G. J. V

¶13

Apgearancer

¶14

Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondsnt No.1 though served. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Passed^{on7—1—2013)}

¶17

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 3O of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for^{short,“the‘Act")} against the award dated 31.3.1999 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation (Labour CourtL Bilaspur (for short, “the Commissioner”) in Case No.1/W.C.A./98/F/c1aim.

¶18

Facts, in brief, are that, on 24.5.1997, Rathram Sahu (since deceased) alongwith other labours had gone to Stone Mine on Tractor &, Trolley bearing Registration Nos. MP23— (3/4671 8r, 4672 which was owned by the father of respondent No.1 (Basant Kumar Dewangan). When they were returning from the said Stone Mine after loading stones in the said Tractor & Trolley, they met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the said Tractor & Trolley by its driver Mahesh Kumar Dewangan. ResultantlyfRathram Sahu had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot. At the time of accident, deceased Rathram Sahu, who was aged about 55 years, is said to have been earning a total sum of Rs. 1790/— per month as wages.

¶19

The appellant/glaimant^had filed an application, under Section 10 of the Act, before the Commissioner claiming compensation, interest and penalty against employer/ '(Basant respondent No.1 Kumar Dewangan) and insurer/ respondent No.2 (United^{IndiaInsuranceCo.Ltd.)forthedeath} of deceased Rathram Sahu arising out of the said accident during the course^{ofemployment.}

¶20

The learned Commissioner, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties before it, has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,05,737/— in favour of appellant/claimant and against respondent No.2-lnsurance Company^{andhasfurtherdirected} that in case the amount of^{compensation,} after adjusting the amount paid as^{interimcompensation,} is not paid within 3O days from the date of award,^{thenrespondentNo.2—Insurance} Company sh¢all be liable to pay interest at the rate^of18%on the amount of compensation from the date of accident and further Rs.25,000/- as penalty.

¶21

Learned counsel for appellant/claimant has contended that the Commissioner has^{committedamanifesterroroflaw} and fact in assessing the monthly wages of deceased on the lower side and in not imposing^the penalty^{underSection4A} (3) (b)^{oftheActaswellasinnotawardinginterestontheamount} of compensation and penalty^{underSection4A} (3) (a)^oftheAct.

¶22

On the other hand,^{learnedcounselforrespondentNo.2—} Insurance Company has supported^{theimpugnedaward.}

¶23

'In this appeal, the following substantial question of law is involved:^—

¶24

“Whether the Commissioner was justified in not imposing penalty and^{notawardingintereston} the amount of compensation^and penalty?

¶25

\t
<br><br>

¶26

The Commissioner has awarded^{atotalcompensationof} Rs.1,05,737/— in favour of appellant/claimant and against respondent No.2—Insurance^{Companyandhasfurtherdirected} that in case the amount of^{compensation,} after adjusting the amount paid as interim compensation, is not paid Within 30 days from the date^{ofaward,thenrespondentNo.2—Insurance} Company shall be^liable to pay interest at the^rateof18%on the amount of compensation from the date of accident and further Rs.25,000/—^as penalty,

¶27

So far as wages of deceased^{RathramSahuisconcerned,} there is no cogent and^{reliableevidenceadducedonbehalfof} appellant/ claimant,^{exceptheroralstatement,} that the wages of deceased Rathram^{SahuwasRs.l790/—} per^month.Onthe other hand, employer/respondent No.1 (Basant Kumar Dewangan) has admitted^{thatdec‘easedwasbeing} paid^wages at the rate of Rs.l560/— per^{month.InViewofthis,thefinding} recorded by the Commissioner,^{thatthewagesofdeceasedwas} Rs. 1560/— per month, cannot^{betermedaserroneousorfaulty,} which deserves to be^{andisherebyaffirmed.}

¶28

So far as imposition of penalty^{underSection4A} (3) (b)^of the Act upon respondent No.2—Insurance Company is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ved Prakash Garg and another v. Premi Devi and others reported in 1998 (1)^ACC 232^hasheldthat penalty^cannotbe imposed upon the^{insurerandthesamecanonlybeimposed} upon the employer. As such, in View of the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court^{intheabove—mentioned} case, penalty under Section 4A (3) (b) could not have been imposed^upon respondent No.2-lnsurance^{Companyandthesamedeservesto} be and is hereby setiaside. 11. Now the question is^{—whether,intheinstantcase,there} are sufficient grounds for imposing penalty^{underSection4A} (3) (b) of the Act upon employer/respondent Noll (Basant Kumar Dewangan?)

¶29

So far as imposition of^interestand psnalty^isconcerned, it is not in dispute that^{theaccidentin} question^resultingin death of workman^{RathramSahuhadoccurredon24.5.1997.} Employer/respondent No.1 Basant Kumar Dewangan has admitted in his reply that^{onthedateofaccidentthedeceased} workman was under his employment and his death had occurred on account^{ofaccidentarisingoutofandduringthe} course of employment. The employer/respondent^No.1 has also admitted that the deceased workman was being paid wages @ Rs. 1560/- per^{month,despitethatnocompensation} amount was paid^{eitherbyrespondentNo.1/employerorby} insurer/respondent No.2—United India Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent No.2/insurer^{inadditiontootherobjections} has denied the fact that intimation about the accident resulting in death^{ofdeceasedworkmanRathramSahuwas} ever given to it either by the appellant/claimant or by the insurer/respondent No. 1.

¶30

The appellant/claimant has pleaded^{inherapplication} and has also stated on oath that she had demanded the amount of compensation^{fromtheemployer/respondentNo.1} and the same having not been paid,^{shehadsentnoticesto} the respondents by^registered post^{AcknowledgementDue.} A copy of the said notice alongwith postal^{receiptsaswellasAD} have been filed. On the basis of documents^{filed,ithasbeen} proved^{thatthenoticesdemandingcompensationwereserved} on the respondents in the^{monthofJanuary,} 1998 but the amount of compensation was not paid to the appellant/ claimant on account of which the appellant/claimant^was compelled to file an application for compensation on 5.2.1998^{beforetheCommissioner,onthe} basis of which the impugned award dated 30.1.1999 was passed. As such, it stands proved that after the accident resulting in death of deceased^{RathramSahu,compensation} amount was demanded^from the employer/respondent^No.1 and after that notices^{weresenttoboththerespondentsby} registered post AD^{andwhenevenafterthatthecompensation} amount was not paid that the appellant/claimant was compelled to file an application^underSection 10 of the Act ~¥~Ai

¶31

Pk‘

¶32

before^{theCommissioner/forcompensation.} On the basis^of material available on record, it stands proved that despite notices the respondents had committed a willful default in paying^the compensation^amount to the appellant/claimant and thereby^{theyhaverenderedthemselvesliableforpayment} of interest and penalty.

¶33

Now the question is from which date the amount of compensation canbe^{saidtohave“fallendue”?} 14. The Hon’ble Supreme^Court in its four Judges^Bench decision rendered in Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata and another,^reportedin (1976) 1 SCC 289, has^laid down that in^{casewillfuldefaultiscommittedonthepartof} employer and insurer, then the amount of compensation is said to have^{fallenduenotfromthedateofadjudicationby} the Commissioner^underSection 19 of the Act, but^fromthe date on which the injury or death had resulted. As per Section 4A(3) clause (a) and (b), the employer/respondent No.1 had rendered^{himselfliableforinterestfromthedateof} accident i.e. 24.5.1997. As such, the respondents shall be jointly^{andseverallyliabletopaytheamountofcompensation} i.e. Rs.1,05,737/— alongwith simple interest @ 12% per annum thereon^from 1.6.1997 till the date of payment. In addition to this,^{theemployer/respondentNo.1} shall be liable to pay Rs.25,000/— as penalty under^Section 4A(3)(b) [of^the Act. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The respondents shall be jointly^and severally liable to pay the amount of^compensation i.e. Rs.1,05;737/-.^{alongwithsimple} interest @ 12% per^{annumthereonfrom} 1.6. 1997^till the^date of payment. The employer/respondent No.1 shall also be liable to pay^{Rs.25,000/—as} penalty^{underSection4A(3)(b)of} i the Act.

¶34

No costs.

¶35

Sd/— G. MINHAJUDDIN ' Judge

¶36

MW“

Mst.Budhwara Bai v. Basant Kumar Dewangan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mst.Budhwara Bai v. Basant Kumar Dewangan 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

Vinod Kumar Singh Vs Phagu Ram and Others

Smt.Seema Mishra and Others Vs T.Ramaswami and Others

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Geeta Netam and Others

Ashish Kumar Vs Ashwani Kumar and Others

Naresh Kumar Verma Vs Reliance General Insurance Co,ltd.

Sanjay Kumar Dewangan Anors Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.