Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2609 (RAJ)

Ikramuddin v. Kailashi

2017-11-28

INDERJEET SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Inderjeet Singh, J. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 06.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Bundi in case no. WC/F/18/2000. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants-respondents no.1 & 2 filed an application before the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Bundi against the appellant and respondent no.3 - United India Insurance Company Limited stating therein that deceased Ram Prakash died in a road accident on 29.05.2000 while working as Khalasi on truck no. RJ-14G-1301. It was also stated in the claim petition that deceased died due to the accident and during the course of his employment. Lastly, prayed for awarding the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 3. The respondent no.3 - Insurance company filed reply to the claim application and denied the averments and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The appellant i.e. owner of the vehicle not appeared before the Commissioner despite service of notices. 5. The Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, after considering the evidence on record allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,26,380/- in favour of the claimants along with 12% interest on the compensation amount and the respondent no.3 i.e. - Insurance Company was directed to pay the amount of compensation and interest on the said amount by the Commissioner. Apart from this, the Commissioner also imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- upon the appellant i.e. owner of the vehicle along with interest at the rate of 12% for not making the payment of compensation as well as not appearing before the Commissioner. 6. Against the order of penalty passed by the Commissioner the appellant filed an application for review and for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings but without any affidavit in support of the application, therefore, the learned Commissioner vide order dated 28.02.2002 dismissed the application filed by the appellant. 7. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent no.3-Insurance Company has paid amount of compensation along with interest to the claimant without any delay, therefore, the Commissioner has wrongly awarded the penalty against the appellant. Counsel further submits that according to the scheme of Workmen's Compensation Act, the penalty cannot be imposed upon the employer when the payment has already been made by the Insurance Company to the claimant. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the Commissioner. 9. Counsel further submits that according to the scheme of Workmen's Compensation Act, the penalty cannot be imposed upon the employer when the payment has already been made by the Insurance Company to the claimant. 8. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the Commissioner. 9. Heard counsel for the parties. 10. Section 4A deals with the compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default which reads as under:- "4A1 Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.- (1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the [employee], as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the [employee] to make any further claim. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall - (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due, and (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause whey it should not be passed." 11. The argument raised by the counsel for the appellant regarding that the Commissioner has wrongly imposed penalty upon the employer is not acceptable in view Section 4A (3) (b) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others, reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3854, has held as under:- "19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others, reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3854, has held as under:- "19. As a result of the aforesaid discussion it must be held that the question posed for our consideration must be answered partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. In other words the insurance company will be liable to meet the claim for compensation along with interest as imposed on the insured employer by the Workmen's Commissioner under the Compensation Act on the conjoint operation of Section 3 and Section 4-A Sub-section (3)(a) of the Compensation Act. So far as additional amount of compensation by way of penalty imposed on the insured employer by the Workmen's Commissioner under Section 4A(3)(b) is concerned, however, the insurance company would not remain liable to reimburse the said claim and it would be the liability of the insured employer alone. 12. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ved Prakash (supra) as well as in view of the provision of Section 4A-(3) (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in my considered opinion the Commissioner has rightly imposed the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- upon the employer for not payment of compensation when fell due. 13. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly no substantial question of law is made out in this appeal; secondly, the appellant was negligent in not appearing before the Commissioner; thirdly, the Commissioner has used its discretion for awarding the penalty on the owner of the vehicle according to the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act. 14. In that view of the matter, the appeal as well as stay application filed by the appellant stands dismissed.