Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 166 (HP)

D. F. O. KARSOG v. BUDHI SINGH

2005-05-26

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2005
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been filed against the order of Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. dated 28.2.1997. 2. The facts which are not in dispute are that deceased Shayam Kala who was aged about 20 years died when she was struck by stone when she was working on construction of fire line. There is no dispute also with regard to the wages of the deceased which were Rs. 45.75 paise per day. 3. The only dispute raised by the appellant is that the penalty should not have been imposed upon the appellant. The death admittedly took place on 6th October, 1995. It appears that the Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog also sent some letter to the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, Mandi on 7th March, 1996 and which was received in the office of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, Karsog on 13th May, 1996. Budhi Singh, father of the claimant, had also filed a writ petition in the High Court of H.P. This Court had issued direction(s) in the said case that the proceedings under the Workmens Compensation Act be concluded within six months. Despite all these facts the amount of compensation was not deposited. The State being model employer is expected to deposit the compensation as soon as it is payable. The death was within the knowledge of the employer. The wages were also within the knowledge of the employer. The compensation should have been calculated and deposited within one month of the death under the provisions of the Act. Since the State has failed to deposit the compensation in the requisite period, the Commissioner has rightly imposed the penalty. The order imposing the penalty calls for no interference. Reference in this behalf may be made to the decision of this court in Ram Dulari Kalia v. H.P. State Electricity Board and another, 1986 ILR (H.P. Series) 842. 4. While going through the award I find that the amount awarded is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. The wages of the deceased were admittedly Rs. 45.75 paise per day or Rs. 1372.50 paise per month. The Commissioner has wrongly taken 40% of the wages for calculating the compensation. As per the Act as it stood on the date of accident, 50% of wages had to be taken into consideration. The wages of the deceased were admittedly Rs. 45.75 paise per day or Rs. 1372.50 paise per month. The Commissioner has wrongly taken 40% of the wages for calculating the compensation. As per the Act as it stood on the date of accident, 50% of wages had to be taken into consideration. 50% of the wages comes to Rs. 686.25 paise. This has to be multiplied by the relevant factor of 224 and as such the compensation payable was Rs. 1,53,720/ -. Under the Act the liability to pay the compensation as per the provisions of Section 4 is a statutory liability It is the duty of the Commissioner and/or any other court which is seized of the matter to ensure that the compensation is paid strictly in accordance with the terms of the Act. In fact the Act prohibits any contract or agreement whereby a workman can relinquish his right to get compensation. Section 17 of the Act reads as follows:— "17. Contracting out.—Any contract or agreement whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, whereby a workman relinquishes any right of compensation from the employer for personal injury arising out of or in the course of the employment, shall be null and void insofar as it purports to remove or reduce the liability of any person to pay compansation under this Act." 5. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the Commissioner as well as the court to ensure that the payment is strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As such even .though no appeal has been filed by the claimant, the amount of compensation is being enhanced from Rs. 1,22,976/ toRs. 1,53,720/-, which would be in accordance with the provisions of the Act as it stood amended on 15th September, 1995, i.e. prior to the accident. 6. Section 4-A (iii) provides that if the compensation is not paid within one month, then the Commissioner should award simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum or such higher rate not exceeding the lending rate of any scheduled bank. It is thus clear that the Commissioner cannot award interest below 12% per annum. The claimants are thus also held entitled to interest on the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,53,720/- at the rate of 12% per annum from 7th November, 1995 till date of payment/ deposit. The penalty of Rs. It is thus clear that the Commissioner cannot award interest below 12% per annum. The claimants are thus also held entitled to interest on the amount of compensation of Rs. 1,53,720/- at the rate of 12% per annum from 7th November, 1995 till date of payment/ deposit. The penalty of Rs. 61,488/- is not being disturbed. 7. The appellant-State is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation in the Registry of this court within 12 weeks from today 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of.