Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 877 (HP)

Satya Devi v. Geeta Ram

2017-07-28

SANJAY KAROL

body2017
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (Oral) - The present appeal stands admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "1. Whether the findings of the Court below are a result of complete misreading, misinterpretation of evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law?" 2. The claim petition filed by the claimants (legal heirs of deceased Khatri Ram) stands dismissed by the appropriate Authority, hence correctness of the findings so returned are subject matter of the present appeal so filed under Section 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''). 3. On 1.2.2004, while driving tractor bearing registration No. HP17-3640, Khatri Ram died as a result of an accident. FIR (Ext.PW4/3/B) came to be registered. Being legal heirs of the deceased, present appellants filed an application for compensation under the provisions of the Act, claiming the deceased to be under employment of Jagmohan Khanduja (respondent No. 2). It is not disputed that the vehicle in question, owned by Geeta Ram (respondent No. 1), was taken on hire by Jagmohan Khanduja. 4. The authority below, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: "1. Whether the applicant was a workman within the meaning of the Act? OPA 2. Whether the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment? OPA 3. Whether the amount of compensation claimed is due or any part thereof? OPA 4. Whether the respondent are liable to pay the amount of compensation claimed? OPA 5. Relief." 5. Finding the claimants not to have established the employer/employee relationship that of Khatri Ram with Jagmohan Khanduja, the claim petition came to be dismissed in terms of impugned order dated 10.3.2008, passed by Commissioner Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, Sub Division Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. in Case No. 5 of 2004, titled as Satya Devi & others v. Geeta Ram & another. 6. Certain facts, as already observed, are not in dispute. Claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Khatri Ram. The vehicle in question is owned by Geeta Ram (respondent No. 1). It was given on hire to Jagmohan Khanduja (respondent No. 2) who remained ex-parte before the authority below and has also chosen not to contest the present appeal. He has not stepped into the witness box either. The Authority has only adjudicated Issue No. 1. 7. The vehicle in question is owned by Geeta Ram (respondent No. 1). It was given on hire to Jagmohan Khanduja (respondent No. 2) who remained ex-parte before the authority below and has also chosen not to contest the present appeal. He has not stepped into the witness box either. The Authority has only adjudicated Issue No. 1. 7. Now in the instant case, no doubt in some part of the testimony of the claimant Satya Devi (PW-1) it has come that she is not aware of the employer/employee relationship but then the Authority below has totally ignored that part of her testimony wherein she does state such fact and the statement of Jai Gopal (RW-3), munshi of Jagmohan Khanduja, who uncontrovertedly and categorically deposed that the vehicle in question, so hired by the latter, was plied as a driver, by Khatri Ram. In fact, he proceeds to state that the deceased was gainfully employed by Jagmohan Khanduja @ Rs. 150/- per day. Now this fact stands completely ignored by the Authority below. In fact, this testimony only corroborates the contents of the F.I.R. (Ext. PW4/3/B) wherein the factum of the deceased having driven the vehicle at the relevant point in time, resulting into his death stands recorded. 8. It is a settled principle of law that proceedings under the Workmen''s Compensation Act are summary in nature and the Authority is only to prima facie form an opinion with regard to the relationship between the parties, which fact, in the instant case, stands fully established beyond reasonable doubt. 9. Under these circumstances, findings returned by the Authority below on Issue No. 1 being perverse and illegal are quashed and set aside. Material, relevant in nature, was ignored while forming an erroneous opinion that deceased Khatri Ram was not gainfully employed with Jagmohan Khanduja. 10. The claim petition came to be filed in the year 2004. As such, this Court, keeping in view the interest of the parties as also justice, chooses to also decide other issues. 11. The accident occurred at the time when the vehicle, so hired by Jagmohan Khanduja, was being driven by Khatri Ram. F.I.R. corroborates such fact. As such, Issue No. 2 is held accordingly. 12. As such, this Court, keeping in view the interest of the parties as also justice, chooses to also decide other issues. 11. The accident occurred at the time when the vehicle, so hired by Jagmohan Khanduja, was being driven by Khatri Ram. F.I.R. corroborates such fact. As such, Issue No. 2 is held accordingly. 12. Insofar as the question of liability is concerned, this Court is of the view that since the vehicle owned by Geeta Ram came to be hired by Jagmohan Khanduja and was used as such, the liability would be that of the latter, being the hirer. 13. What would be an adequate amount of compensation is an issue which is required to be decided next. 14. At the time of death, deceased was 37 years of age. He was getting wages @ ` 150/- per day i.e. Rs. 4500 per month. He left behind the claimants being his widow, five minor daughters and one minor son. The factum of employment and salary stands established through the testimony of Satya Devi (PW-1), Geeta Ram (RW-1) and Jai Gopal (RW-3). 15. In view of the provisions of the Act, as applicable on the date of the accident, the maximum wages for working out the compensation under Section 4 of the Act will be Rs. 4000/- per month. Thus the compensation payable will be Rs. 2000/- (i.e. 50% of the monthly wages) multiplied by the relevant factor, which as per Schedule IV is 192.14 (as the deceased workman had completed 37 years of age), which comes to Rs. 3,84,280/- (Rs. 2000 X 192.14). Claimants shall also be entitled to interest @12% on the said amount w.e.f. 1.3.2004, i.e. one month after the date of accident which took place on 1.2.2004, which comes to Rs. 6,14,847/-. As such, the total amount of compensation due to the claimants on account of compensation claim including the simple interest comes to Rs. 9,99,127/-. Further, the claimants are also entitled for penalty @ 50% on the compensation amount, which comes to Rs. 1,92,140/-. Thus, the total amount of compensation which becomes due and payable to the complainants comes to Rs. 11,91,267/-. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 11,91,267/- shall be paid by Jagmohan Khanduja (respondent No. 2) within a period of three months from the date of this order. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly, as also pending application(s), if any.