Allowed

Hari Ram v. the Shahbad Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Oct 2024FAO/3280/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding the appellant entitled to 12% annual interest from the expiry of one month after the accident. Additionally, a penalty of 50% of the compensation amount was awarded due to the respondent's failure to provide sufficient cause for not paying penalty.

What did the court decide?

Appellant entitled to 12% p.a. interest from May 1, 1999; penalty of 50% of compensation awarded payable within 60 days.

Hari Ram Vs the Shahbad Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

FAO No.3280 of 2007

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.3280 of 2007 Date of Decision: 15.10.2024

¶5

Hari Ram (deceased) through his LRs …..Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Shahabad Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited .....Respondent

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶9

Present : Ms. Tanya Vashist, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Nain, Advocate for LRs of the appellant.

¶10

Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate with

¶11

Mr. Geetika Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Claimant is in appeal aggrieved of order passed by Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

¶14

Claimant approached Commissioner under the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment.

¶15

The claimant has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.85,675/-. It has been further ordered that claimant shall also be entitled for interest @ 12% per annum in case the respondent/employer fails to

¶16

Deepak Kumar 2024.11.12 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

FAO No.3280 of 2007

¶18

¶19

deposit compensation within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. Apart from the aforesaid compensation, nothing has been paid as penalty in terms of Section 4A of 1923 Act.

¶20

Counsel for the respondent is not in position to dispute that in terms of Section 4A(3)(a), the interest ought to have been awarded from the expiry of one month from the date the compensation fell due.

¶21

No provisional compensation was deposited with the Commissioner in terms of Section 4A(2). Thus, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant is held entitled for an interest @ 12% per month from the date of expiry of one month after the accident. The claimant suffered injuries in accident on 1^st of April, 1999. Thus, the appellant is held entitled for interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 1^st of May, 1999.

¶22

Impugned order is modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶23

In the ultimate paragraph, the Commissioner noticed that the order on penalty shall be announced after serving show cause notice on the respondent.

¶24

Counsels are ad idem that no penalty has been awarded, though the Commissioner noticed the same. Consequently, penalty of 50% of the compensation amount is awarded under Section 4A(3)(b) as counsel for the respondent could not show any sufficient cause for not awarding penalty in favour of the appellant. The amount of penalty be paid to the appellant

¶25

Deepak Kumar 2024.11.12 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

FAO No.3280 of 2007

¶27

¶28

within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶29

In case, the respondent fails to pay the amount of penalty within the time period stipulated hereinabove, the penalty amount shall also carry an interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order.

¶30

Appeal is disposed off accordingly.

¶31

October 15, 2024	(Pankaj Jain)
Dpr	Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶32

Deepak Kumar 2024.11.12 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Hari Ram v. the Shahbad Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram v. the Shahbad Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pb. Small Indus & Export Vs Union of India

Kundan Singh Vs Charansingh

Godwin Agro Products Limited and Anr. Vs Santokh Singh and Anr.

Gurdev Singh Grewal Vs Ravinder Kaur Grewal @ Harwinder Kaur Grewal

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sharda Devi

Kashmir Singh Vs Mohan Singh