Allowed

Surjit Kaur and Others v. General Manager and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Aug 2009FAO/754/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal against a workmen's compensation award held that the enhanced Schedule under the 1984 Amendment Act applies, as the Act is welfare legislation given liberal interpretation. The court allowed the appeal, directing payment of Rs. 81,736.08.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay compensation of Rs. 81,736.08 to the appellants/claimants within one month.

Surjit Kaur and Others Vs General… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

FAO No. 754 of 1987 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No. 754 of 1987 Date of decision: August 10, 2009

¶4

Surjit Kaur and others ........ Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

General Manager and another .......Respondent(s)

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶8

-.-

¶9

Present: Mr. Tekwinder Singh, Advocate for the appellants

¶10

Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State

¶11

¶12

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

¶14

Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

¶16

This is an appeal against the judgement dated 02.04.1987 passed by the Commissioner, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Gurdaspur, granting Rs.24,000/- as compensation to the applicants on account of the death of Mohan Lal, driver of the Punjab Roadways, Pathankot .

¶17

While challenging the aforesaid judgement, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants/claimants are entitled to the compensation on the basis of the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1984. The Commissioner has assessed the compensation on the basis of Schedule

¶18

FAO No. 754 of 1987 2

¶19

provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which act has subsequently been amended by virtue of Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1984. Thus, the present petition having been disposed of after the amendment, the appellants/claimants were entitled to the compensation as provided in the schedule of the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1984. It was further asserted that even as per the compensation on the basis of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the same has not been awarded as per the schedule IV and only granted a meagre amount of Rs.24,000/- as lump sum.

¶20

Prior to amendment, Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, 1923, reads as

¶21

follows:-

¶22

“4. Amount of Compensation- (1) subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:-

¶23

(a) where death result from the injury, an amount equal to forty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of twenty thousand rupees whichever is more;”

¶24

After the amendment of the Act, in Section 4 of the Principal Act, in sub section (1):-

¶25

(i) in clause (a), for the words 'forty per cent' and 'twenty thousand rupees', the words 'fifty per cent' and 'fifty thousand rupees' shall respectively be substituted.

¶26

From the above amendment, it, thus, transpires that in place of 40% the Legislation enhanced the amount to 50% by amended provision. The only question that comes into consideration in this appeal is as to whether the benefit of the amended legislation, which came into force after filing of the appeal, will apply in the present case.

¶27

FAO No. 754 of 1987 3

¶28

After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the Commissioner has erred in law, while granting a lump sum Rs.24,000/- as compensation without adhering to the schedule either under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 or under the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1984, whereas the claimants were entitled to the compensation on the basis of the schedule as provided under the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1984. In the present case, the accident took place on 16.05.1983 and the claim petition was filed on 28.03.1985, which was decided on 02.04.1987. The present appeal has been filed in July, 1987. The Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1984, having come into operation during the pendency of the claim petition, as well as the present appeal, the provisions of the new Act would be applicable in view of the fact that the aforesaid Act is a welfare legislation and is required to be given a broad and liberal interpretation.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on a judgement of the High Court of Gauhati in the case of ' Sandhya Goswami and others and Bani Choudhary and another', 2000-II-LLJ-39 (Gauhati) , wherein it was held that:-

¶30

“ 10. The Legislature by amending Section 4 of the Principal Act, 1923, did not change the colour and content of the Act and the liability of the employer for paying compensation. The Legislature did not bring any distinction between the accidents those which took place prior to the amendment (Act 30 of 1995) and those which took place after the amendments. The amending provisions do not suggest any limitation. The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is a welfare legislation which requires to be given a broad and liberal interpretation. The Statute deals with compensation for accident arising out of an in the course of

¶31

FAO No. 754 of 1987 4

¶32

employment to a certain class of workmen. It is a Legislation dealing with Human Rights of the workmen. In construing such a legislation, the artifice of mechanical interpretation is to be banished and the Court in interpreting such Statutes, is to concern itself with the essence and measures of the legislation, the nature and complexion of the Statute as well as the backdrop and framework of the law.”

¶33

At this stage, the learned State counsel stated that the appellants had claimed only Rs.30,000/- on account of death of Mohan Lal. As such, an amount more than Rs.30,000/- could not have been granted to the claimants and the Commissioner has rightly granted Rs.24,000/- as compensation to the claimants.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant, however, has brought to the notice of the Court, a judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Co. Limited, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 435, wherein it was held that the Court can award compensation more than the amount claimed in the appropriate cases. The aforesaid view was expressed while placing reliance on the earlier judgement of the Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal and others , 2003 (1) RCR (Civil 258 , wherein it was observed as follows in para 7:-

¶35

“ Firstly, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo

¶36

FAO No. 754 of 1987

¶37

is- it should be 'just' compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act.”

¶38

In view of the above discussion, I find that the appellants are entitled to the amount as per the Schedule provided under the proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1984. Thus, 50% of the monthly wages of the workmen comes to Rs.388 multiplied by 210.66, being 33 years of age at the time of death would amount to Rs.81736.08.

¶39

In the light of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 81,736.08 to the appellants/claimants, within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, lest the same shall be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realisation.

¶40

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶41

August 10, 2009 mohan

Surjit Kaur and Others v. General Manager and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Kaur and Others v. General Manager and Another

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

Gurdial Singh Vs Ranjit Singh and Ors.

M/S Malerkotla Rice Mills Vs Punjab State Coop. Supply and Mktg. Fed. Ltd.

Harjit Kaur Vs Parminder Charan Singh & Anr.

Kishan Singh Vs Shivalik Stone Crusher G.U. Sammiti and Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sudarshan Devi and Ors.

Sita Rani and Ors. Vs Union of India