In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
F.A.O. No.2764 of 2009 (O&M)
.....
Date of decision:23.8.2011
State of Punjab through Superintending Engineer, Public Health (RWS),
Gurdaspur and another
.....Appellants
v.
Asha Rani
.....Respondent
....
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
.....
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
......
Present: Mr. Ranvir Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. R.S. Manhas, Advocate for the respondent.
.....
Mohinder Pal, J.
The State of Punjab through Superintending Engineer, Public
Health (RWS), Gurdaspur and another (hereinafter referred to as `the
appellants) have preferred this appeal against the order/award dated
18.8.2008 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923 & Assistant Labour Commissioner, Gurdaspur
camp at Batala (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner’) whereby the
legal representatives of Raghubir Singh (deceased-workman), who was
working as a Mali-cum-Chowkidar with the appellants was held entitled to
F.A.O. No.2764 of 2009 (O&M)
[2]
compensation to the tune of `3,50,400/-, interest amounting to `2,52,880/-,
penalty amounting to `1,75,000/- and compensatory cost amounting to
`1,00,000/-, total amounting to `8,78,280/- taking the basic pay of the
deceased-workman as `2,620/- plus D.A. `1,284/- per month. The claim-
petition had been filed by Smt. Asha Rani wife of the deceased-workman.
Raghubir Singh (workman) while on duty on 15.6.2002 in the
premises of the appellants suffered severe pain in stomach at about 11.30
p.m. at midnight. He died at the spot due to non-availability of medical aid
to him at 1.00 a.m. on 16.6.2002. The claimant brought this accident to the
knowledge of the appellants i.e. employer but they did not care and failed to
initiate police proceedings. They even did not get conducted post-mortem
on the body of the deceased. They did not even pay any thing for the last
rituals of the deceased. No compensation was paid to the claimant despite
her making prayers.
On a claim petition filed by the claimant, the Commissioner had
awarded the above compensation. It also imposed penalty upon the
appellants at the rate of 50 per cent of the awarded amount; besides,
awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the amount of
compensation from the date of the accident/death till its realization.
Compensatory cost of `1,00,000/- was also imposed on the appellants for
taking a serious case of the State in a casual manner, thereby causing
financial loss to the State exchequer. The interest, penalty and
compensatory cost were ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the
deceased-workman by the employer (appellants), as they did not take
any steps for getting the amount of compensation released in favour of
F.A.O. No.2764 of 2009 (O&M)
[3]
the legal heirs of the deceased-workman.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the
appellants has submitted that the claim petition filed by the claimant is
highly belated, time barred and suffers from delay and laches as it has been
filed after five years and two months from the alleged date of accident,
therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued
that the award passed by the Commissioner is well reasoned and does not
call for any interference as the appellants are liable for their lapse.
From the perusal of above stated facts, it is clear that the claim
petition has been filed at a belated stage as there is inordinate delay of five
years and two months in filing the claim petition. The Commissioner has
awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of
accident with penalty of 50 per cent and cost of litigation as `5,000/-. Apart
from above mentioned amount, the Commissioner has also imposed
compensatory cost of `1 Lac to be payable by the appellants. The order of
the Commissioner as far as interest, penalty and compensatory cost are
concerned needs to be reviewed. It is own fault of the claimant in
approaching the Commissioner after a gap of approximately five years and
two months seeking for compensation on account of death of Raghubir
Singh-workman. Since it is own fault of the respondent, the appellants
cannot be fastened with a liability of payment from the date of accident.
Resultantly, the imposition of penalty of compensatory costs of `1 Lac also
seems to be arbitrary. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case, the family status of the parties, the manner in which the claim petition
F.A.O. No.2764 of 2009 (O&M)
[4]
has been filed, the nature of the job held by the deceased and facts and
circumstances of the case, the ends of justice will be met by awarding a
lump-sum compensation of `5,50,000/- in place of `8,78,280/- awarded by
the Commissioner.
Accordingly, the award passed by the Commissioner is
modified to the extent as mentioned above. Hopefully, this amount has
been paid to the dependents of the deceased. However, if this amount is not
paid within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the
appellants shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum
on the above mentioned amount. However, if the amount has been paid to
the dependents of the deceased, the recovery for the excess amount be made
from them.
With the above modification in the impugned award, this
appeal is partly allowed.
August 23, 2011. (Mohinder Pal)
Judge
*hsp*