Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1356 (HP)

Paramjeet Kaur v. Acc Limited

2018-07-20

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - By way of instant appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, challenge has been laid to order, dated 30.10.2017, passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, in case No.33/2 of 2016/10, titled as Paramjeet Kaur & others Vs. M/s ACC Limited & others , whereby appellants ( for short petitioners) have been held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,05,895/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 6.2.1997 till realization of the amount. Since, employer i.e. M/s ACC Limited principal employer and M/s Naresh Coal Company i.e. the actual employer, failed to pay the compensation amount within statutory period, learned Commissioner below also held petitioners liable to damages/penalty at the rate of 10% on the original compensation amount to be paid by respondents No.l and 3 jointly. 2. Ms. Megha Kapur Gautam, learned counsel representing the appellants-petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to the impugned order vis-a-vis evidence adduced on record, vehemently argued that compensation awarded by the learned Court below is inadequate and not in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Since, accident occurred on 6.1.1997, provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, applicable on that date shall be applicable qua the case of the appellants/claimants/petitioners. While inviting attention of this Court to explanation II of Section 4 of the Act, Ms. Megha Kapur Gautam, learned counsel argued that where monthly wages of a workman exceed two thousand rupees, his/her monthly wages for the purpose of clause A and B, shall be deemed to be two thousand rupees only, whereas in the present case, income of deceased has been taken as Rs.1000/-. 3. Mr. Praneet Gupta,learned counsel representing respondent No.2-Insurance company while conceding the aforesaid fact, contended that no doubt as per explanation II of Section 4 of the Act, two thousand rupees is/was required to be taken as income of the deceased while computing the amount of compensation, but in the present case there is inordinate delay in maintaining the present appeal under Employees Compensation Act and as such, no case, if any, is made out for enhancement of compensation. 4. 4. It is not in dispute that prior to filing of the petition under Section 22 of the Employee''s Compensation Act, petitioners-appellants had filed petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein an amount of Rs. 2,81,500/- was awarded to the petitioners-appellants. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award, dated 9.8.1999, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, respondent-insurance company had filed appeal bearing FAO(MVA) No. 16 of 2000 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29 th July, 2009 set-aside the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and reserved liberty to the petitioners/ claimants to approach the appropriate Court of law i.e. Commissioner under workmens Compensation Act, 1923, however facts remains that after passing of aforesaid order, petitioners remained silent for almost 2 years and during this period they took no steps, whatsoever, for initiating proceedings, if any, under Workmens Compensation Act. 6. This Court is of the considered view that once liberty was reserved to the petitioners to approach authorities under Workmens Compensation Act, they should have filed claim petition, if any, at the first opportunity, but in the instant case there appears to be no explanation rendered on record for inordinate delay in maintaining the petition under Section 22 of the Workmens Compensation Act and as such, this Court sees no reason to enhance the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Commissioner under workmens Compensation Act. Though, provisions of law i.e. explanation II of Section 4, clearly suggests that an amount of Rs.1000/- was required to be taken as income of deceased while computing the amount of compensation, but since petitioners have approached concerned court after inordinate delay and there is no explanation qua the delay, prayer made in the instant appeal cannot be accepted. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.