Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 49 (HP)

BALBIR SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

1990-07-24

BHAWANI SINGH

body1990
JUDGMENT : Bhawani Singh, J. 1. This is an appeal u/s 30, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by Balbir Singh, the claimant in the case, against the order of Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act dated 7.5.1990. The appellant has challenged the order on the ground that the compensation has not been assessed accurately and in accordance with the legal provisions applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The matter arises in the following circumstances: The appellant was a workman with the respondents on Shimla bypass. During this employment, he sustained hand injury during the blasting operations. He was taken to the hospital where he remained from 5.10.1988 to 28.10.1988. The appellant complains that as a result of this injury there is total disablement, since he cannot do any work and the employer has also turned him out of the employment. 3. The claim petition was preferred on 20.6.1989. The Commissioner passed interim order on the same date directing the respondents to start paying the claimant half of the monthly wages, the petitioner had been receiving from the respondents. Accordingly, the respondents started paying this amount from the month of June, 1989 and the arrears of this amount for the past were also paid. As per order of the Commissioner, these payments were subject to the announcement of the final award. 4. After enquiring into the matter, the Commissioner assessed the amount of compensation by applying provisions of Section 4 (1) (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and on this basis awarded a sum of Rs. 39,386/- (compensation Rs. 36,328.50 and interest at the rate of 6 per cent with effect from 5.11.1988 to 31.3.1990 as Rs. 3,057/-). It is this order of the Commissioner which is under challenge in this appeal. Mr. B.R. Verma, counsel for the claimant, submitted that by application of Section 4 (2) (ii) read with Schedule IV to the Act the compensation payable has to be Rs. 48,438/- since this is a case of 100 per cent disablement as per Schedule I, item No. 2 to the Act. (225 X 215.28 = Rs. 48,438/-). Mr. B.R. Verma, learned counsel for the claimant, urges that total disablement has to be read with Schedule I to the Act. 5. 48,438/- since this is a case of 100 per cent disablement as per Schedule I, item No. 2 to the Act. (225 X 215.28 = Rs. 48,438/-). Mr. B.R. Verma, learned counsel for the claimant, urges that total disablement has to be read with Schedule I to the Act. 5. After examining the facts of the case and the statutory provisions, I am in agreement with these submissions of the learned counsel for the claimant and hold that the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation as per his contention. The claimant is thus entitled to Rs. 48,438/- for the injuries sustained by him in this accident. 6. Now coming to the question of interest. The counsel for the parties and more particularly the State counsel laid great emphasis on this point. It was contended by the counsel for the claimant that his client is entitled to interest from 5.10.1988 to 4.11.1988 and 1.4.1990 to 7.5.1990 at the rate of 6 per cent but he was given the same only for period from 5th of November, 1988 to 31st March, 1990. In this way, the claimant is entitled to interest which has been denied unjustifiably by the Commissioner. This denial is also wrong and the claimant is entitled to interest for the periods claimed by him. 7. Finally comes the question of penalty that is leviable for the failure of the employer to deposit compensation with the Commissioner within a period of one month from the date of the accident. Counsel for the State explained quite vehemently circumstances which prevented the respondents from depositing the compensation. It was submitted that there was a delay in obtaining the medical certificate. The certificate of February, 1989 was not final since final certificate was to be submitted by the doctor at a subsequent stage. It was also submitted that it was immediately after 20.6.1989 that the respondents not only paid the petitioner regularly half of the monthly wages but also paid the arrears for the period. In these circumstances it was urged that the penalty provision may not be invoked. I am not convinced by this submission of the State counsel for the reason that u/s 4-A of the Act, it is the duty of the employer to deposit the compensation amount with the Commissioner under the Act within a period of one month from the date of the accident. I am not convinced by this submission of the State counsel for the reason that u/s 4-A of the Act, it is the duty of the employer to deposit the compensation amount with the Commissioner under the Act within a period of one month from the date of the accident. Although the Commissioner was intimated about the accident yet no deposit of compensation was made. The contention that the respondents were not aware of the exact amount payable to the claimant is not convincing since they could pay any amount to which, according to them, the claimant was entitled since the nature and extent of injury was known to them. The Act is beneficial piece of legislation. It is meant to safeguard the interest of workmen and the approach is also to get them the claimed amount at the earliest and slackness on the part of the employer in depositing the amount of compensation has been made stringent by providing penalty to the extent of 50 per cent on the total amount of compensation [See Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata 1976 ACJ 141 and Siddappa v. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corporation (1984) 1 TAC 174. Although the State counsel made serious pleas for not imposing the penalty but according to me it is a fit case where it has to be done. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the enhanced compensation, interest on the enhanced compensation as well as for periods, namely, 5.10.1988 to 4.11.1988 and 1.4.1990 to 7.5.1990 at the rate of 6 per cent and penalty at the rate of 50 per cent on the awarded amount. It is made clear that amounts paid by the respondents to the claimant at the rate of Rs. 225/- per month from 5.10.1988 to the date of award will be deducted from the total amount of the award. The judgment be implemented in the aforesaid terms within a period of six weeks from today. Costs on parties.