Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2267 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Kanti Ben

2012-12-06

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the award dated 28-8-1998 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Jaipur District-I in WCCF 46/1993 whereby claim petition of the claimant was allowed and they have been granted compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,75,960/-. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondents 1 to 4 filed an application under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 on 18-12-1993 before the Court of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District Jaipur claiming compensation Rs. 87,980/- and further penalty of Rs. 43,990/- against the appellant and respondent No. 5 on account of the alleged loss suffered by them due to death of Suresh Kumar during course of employment on 5- 6-1992 when he was working as driver on Jeep No. GJ/2 A 1782 belonging to respondent No. 5 which was being driven by the deceased himself. After affecting service of notice the appellant insurance company filed reply to the claim petition on 6-5-1994. During the pendency of the claim petition the appellant deposited Rs. 87,980/- on 9-2-1998 vide cheque No. 871691 and the said amount was accepted by the claimants. The owner of the vehicle despite service of notice did not appear before the Commissioner. It has been stated that vide order sheet dated 6-5-1998 the claimants accepted amount of Rs. 87,980/- and thereafter the claim petition was proceeded only with a view to decide the penalty to be imposed against the owner of the vehicle. The Commissioner vide order dated 28-8-1998 decided the claim petition holding that the claimants are entitled to get amount as per the amended provisions and as such further awarded Rs. 87,980/- directing the insurance company to pay this amount within 60 days. Thereafter the insurance company filed a review petition before the Commissioner and the same was also decided on 30-6-2000 rejecting the review petition and maintaining the order dated 28-8-1998. 4. Mr. Virendra Agarwal. learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has argued that the impugned award dated 28-8-1998 is absolutely illegal, and without jurisdiction. Thereafter the insurance company filed a review petition before the Commissioner and the same was also decided on 30-6-2000 rejecting the review petition and maintaining the order dated 28-8-1998. 4. Mr. Virendra Agarwal. learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has argued that the impugned award dated 28-8-1998 is absolutely illegal, and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the insurance company has only argued the point that the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 was amended by the Act No. 30/95 effective from 15-9-1995 and the accident in the present case took place on 5-6-1992 hence the benefit of the amended provisions cannot be given to the claimants and the award is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Mehta, Sr. Advocate appearing for the claimants has argued that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner after considering the documents and evidence of the claimants, awarded the compensation as per the amended provisions. The award of the Compensation Commissioner cannot be said to be perverse. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Commissioner Workmen's Compensation in the order dated 28-8-1998 observed as under : (Vernacular matter omitted.... Ed.) 7. The Commissioner also observed in his order that since the insurance company has deposited the compensation Rs. 87,980/- no penalty should be levied from them taking a lenient view in the matter. The findings of the Commissioner cannot be said to be perverse. The Commissioner rightly awarded the compensation to the claimants as per the amended provisions and the said provision was in force at the time of passing of the order. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation. The appeal filed by the insurance company being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 8. The appeal being devoid of merit stands rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******