Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1641 (PNJ)

Manohar Kaur v. Krishan Singh Parhar

2011-08-29

MOHINDER PAL

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Mohinder Pal, J.: - This appeal has been filed by appellants-claimants Manohar Kaur, Amrik Singh, Kuldip Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Kaka Singh, Bholi and Sunder Kaur praying for increase of compensation of Rs.47,294.40 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as well as penalty at the rate of 50% from the respondents awarded vide order/award dated 15.2.1988 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge-cum-Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, Sangrur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’). 2. Appellant Manohar Kaur is the widow of Malawa Singh (deceased), appellants No.2 to 6 are the minor sons and daughter of Malawa Singh and appellant No.7-Sunder Kaur is the mother of Malawa Singh (deceased). Malawa Singh was employed as a driver of tempo bearing registration No.PJJ-6041 with Krishan Singh Parhar (respondent No.1). Krishan Singh Parhar appeared before the Commissioner and filed his written statement and admitted the employment of Malawa Singh as driver. The tempo was insured with the United Insurance Company Limited (respondent No.2) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’). Malawa Singh, was driving this tempo on 26.7.1984 to carry newspapers from Jalandhar to Sangrur when he met with an accident on the road between Dhuri-Sangrur and died at the spot. At the time of death, Malawa Singh was aged about 35 years and was getting Rs.900/- per month as salary from respondent No.1. On the claim petition filed by the appellants, the Commissioner awarded the compensation as mentioned above. 3. I have heard Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate and Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the records of this case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the Commissioner has erred in law while not granting the simple interest on the amount of compensation as the claimants have filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Act, so the respondents were liable to pay simple interest on the amount of compensation. It has further been submitted that the appellants were also entitled to recover penalty to the extent of 50% under Section 4-A of the Act because the respondents did not pay the amount due in time. 5. It has further been submitted that the appellants were also entitled to recover penalty to the extent of 50% under Section 4-A of the Act because the respondents did not pay the amount due in time. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the appeal filed by the appellants under Section 30 of the Act does not lie, as the appellants has not ever given notice to the respondents that all of them are entitled to recover the amount of compensation. Thus, the respondents of their own could not know as to who were real elements, which also shows that the respondents could not be held guilty of having delayed the payment of amount of compensation. It was contended that the appellants were not entitled to recover any amount on account of penalty and interest. 6. There is no straitjacket formula by which the amount of compensation can be estimated. However, the same can be gauged keeping in view the status of the parties especially the claimants, the manner in which the accident had taken place, life span of the deceased, expenses incurred on the last rites, agony of the claimants etc. The Commissioner, after appreciating the entire evidence and the fact that the claimants could not produce any documentary evidence with regard to age of Malawa Singh as 30 years, has taken his age as 35 years. It was further held that the appellants also could not prove that Malawa Singh (deceased) was getting monthly salary of Rs.900/- from respondent No.1. The Commissioner took into account the salary of Malawa Singh as Rs.600/- per month which was admitted by respondent No.1 that Malawa Singh was getting at the time of his death and awarded compensation of Rs.47,294.40. However, the prayer of the claimantsappellants to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as well as penalty at the rate of 50% was not accepted. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants could not be accepted as the appeal filed by them under Section 30 of the Act does not lie. Hence, they could not be held entitled to recover penalty under Section 4-A of the Act as they have not ever given any notice to the respondents that all of them are entitled to recover the amount of compensation. Hence, they could not be held entitled to recover penalty under Section 4-A of the Act as they have not ever given any notice to the respondents that all of them are entitled to recover the amount of compensation. The appellants initially filed petition and claimed Rs.30,000/- as compensation on the death of Malawa Singh and penalty of Rs.15,000/- and further interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, during the pendency of the petition, they amended their petition and filed petition claiming an amount of Rs.74,872.80 as compensation and Rs.37,436.40 as penalty and interest by giving the age of Malawa Singh as 30 years and that he was getting salary of Rs.900/- at the time of his death. However, neither they could prove his age as 30 years nor could prove that Malawa Singh was getting salary of Rs.900/- per month at the time of his death. Thus, the appellants could not say that the respondents have unduly delayed the payment of amount of compensation to the appellants. The amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be quite reasonable. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any ground warranting interference in the impugned award passed by the Commissioner. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. ----------0BSK0----------