Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs Daulal and Others

P.D. Mulye, J.—The appellant has tiled this appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act against the decision given by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Indore, in Case No. 13 of 1981 on 11-7-1983 whereby he has awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,800/- plus interest at the rate of 6 per cent from 12-7-1980 and 25 per cent penalty over the amount of Rs. 16,8000/-.

The facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated, in brief, thus:

The respondents-claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased workman Omprakash, who was employed by the appellant as a helper and was being paid Rs, 400/- per month as his wages ; that on 12-6-1980 the deceased Omprakash received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in his death on the same day. According to the claimants at the relevant time of the accident the deceased was on duty as a helper in the Depot of the appellant and while he was working below the motor vehicle the same was suddenly started and was driven in the reverse direction as a result of which the deceased came under the wheel and thus on account of the said accident he died. The respondents as the legal representatives of the deceased, his father, wife and children, therefore, gave notice to the appellant on 5-11-1980, but as no amount was paid they filed the present claim petition on 5-3-1981.

The appellant in their written statement contested the respondents claim mainly on the ground that the deceased was a casual labourer and that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. They therefore, disowned their liability.

The claimants in support of their contention examined respondent No. 1 Daulal, the father of the deceased as also Babulal, who was working as a Senior Depot Manager at the relevant time of the accident with the appellant. The appellant did not lead any evidence. The learned Commissioner after considering the evidence and material on record came to the conclusion that the deceased was an employee of the appellant; that his monthly wages were Rs. 200/- and thus the claim was maintainable under the Workmen''s Compensation Act; that the deceased died as a result of the accident which arose out of and in the course of bus employment. He, therefore, awarded compensation as stated above. Hence this appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly contended that after the case was closed for judgment, the respondents moved an application by which they prayed that they be awarded interest, plus a penalty against the appellant according to the provisions of Section 4A of the Workmen''s Compensation Act. Therefore, as this application was filed so late there was no justification for granting interest or awarding penalty against the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that as the appellant had contested the respondents'' claim on the ground that the deceased was a casual labourer on account of which the appellant was not liable to pay any compensation, they did not deposit the amount with the Commissioner even after receiving a notice from the respondents, apart from the fact that they did not know who are the legal representatives of the deceased. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that they having raised a bona fide dispute, the learned Commissioner has committed an error in levying the penalty to the tune of 25 per cent. However, we are not persuaded to agree with this submission as the appellant has not led any evidence in support of their contention. On the contrary PW 2 Babulal, who was in June, 1980 at the time of the accident working as a Senior Depot Manager in the City Depot with the appellant has clearly deposed that the deceased was in their employment and that the accident occurred while he was discharging his duties as a helper. He has also deposed that the deceased was paid Rs. 200/- as monthly wages. The evidence of the respondent having not been rebutted we see no valid ground to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner after due consideration and appreciation of the evidence and material on record.

On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on decisions reported in The Municipal Commissioner Vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and Others, , Arjitsing Fakirsing Potiwala Vs. Omega Engineering Corporation, and Sita Ram v. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad 1985 (1) TAC 359, as also an unreported decision of this court in M.A. No, 76 of 1975 decided on 7-12-1976 (M.P.S.R.T.C. v. Kashibai) by a Division Bench at Gwalior.

The provisions of Section 4A of the Workmen''s Compensation Act as also the trend of authorities cited above has been that where an employer is in default in paying the compensation no sooner it fell due, within one month thereof the Commissioner has the jurisdiction and the authority to award interest as also in addition levy penalty not "exceeding 50 per cent of the amount of compensation. In the decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata 1976 ACJ 141 (SC) it has also been held that:

In case of a personal injury caused to a workman by an accident which arises out of and in the course of employment, unless the right to compensation is taken away under Sub-section (5) of Section 3, the employer becomes liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury is caused to the workman. Section 19 only provides for settlement by the Commissioner of any question regarding liability of any person to pay compensation of the amount or duration of compensation, in default of any agreement, if such question arises in any proceeding under the Act. The section does not have the effect of suspending the liability of an employer to pay compensation u/s 3 till after the settlement contemplated u/s 19. It is the duty of the employer to pay compensation u/s 4A(1) at the rate provided by Section 4 as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman. Where the employer fails to do so and also makes no provisional payment u/s 4(2) but challenges the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, the employer is liable to pay interest and penalty.

In view of this decision as also the decisions cited above by the learned Counsel for the respondents, we are of opinion that no substantial question of law as such arises in this appeal and we see no valid ground to interfere with the finding recorded and conclusion reached by the learned Commissioner in awarding interest and also levy penalty, after taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration.

In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs, 500/-.