Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
K. Sivaraman & Ors – Appellants
Versus
P. Sathishkumar & Anr – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9046 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 18110 of 2019)
Decided on : 13-02-2020
Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 – Sections 4(1)(a) and 4A – Death in course of employment – Enhanced compensation of Rs. 8,86,120/- awarded by High Court – Appellants are father, mother, sister and brother of deceased who died in course of accident on 31st January 2008 – Deceased was 26 years of age and was engaged as a driver of a Trailor lorry – For the purposes of Section 4A of 1923 Act, obligation to pay compensation arises on the date of accident – Where an employer disputes quantum of compensation payable, it is enjoined to make a provisional payment to Commissioner or employee pending settlement of claim – This is in order to ensure that an employer does not escape its obligation to make good payment of compensation or unduly delay its payment on frivolous grounds – Relevant date for determination of compensation payable is date of accident and benefit of Act 45 of 2009 does not apply to accidents that took place prior to its coming into force – In present case, accident occurred prior to coming into force of Act 45 of 2009 – High Court erred in extending benefit of Act 45 of 2009 – High Court was required to determine compensation payable on date of accident on which date deemed cap of Rs. 4000/- as monthly wages was applicable – Though accident took place in 2008, appeal is being decided over 12 years later – No appeal was filed by respondents against judgment of High Court enhancing compensation – Court not inclined to interfere with award of compensation ordered by High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court to do complete justice under Article 142 of Constitution – Appeal dismissed – Total compensation payable to appellant quantified at Rs. 8,86,120/- on which 12% interest shall be payable from date of accident – Liability for payment of compensation shall be joint and several. (Paras 18, 32, 33, 34 and 36)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dated 1 June 2017. In an appeal arising from a decision of Deputy Commissioner for Employee‘s Compensation, the High Court enhanced compensation payable under the Employee‘s Compensation Act 19231 from Rs. 4,33,060 to Rs 8,86,120. The High Court has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident. Question before this Court is whether the benefit of Act 45 of 2009 deleting the deeming provision in Explanation II which capped the monthly wages of an employee at Rs 4,000 would also apply to accidents which took place prior to the coming into force of its provisions i.e. 18th January 2010 and where final adjudication is pending.
Findings of the Court:
In present case, the accident occurred on 31st January 2008 i.e. prior to coming into force of Act 45 of 2009. Consequently, the High Court erred in extending benefit of Act 45 of 2009 which deleted Explanation II to Section 4 to the present case. High Court was required to determine the compensation payable on the date of the accident on which date, the deemed cap of Rs 4000 as monthly wages was applicable.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J
1. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 1 June 2017. In an appeal arising from a decision of the Deputy Commissioner for Employee‘s Compensation, the High Court enhanced the compensation payable under the Employee‘s Compensation Act 1923 [1923 Act] from Rs 4,33,060 to Rs 8,86,120. The High Court has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident.
2. In the present proceedings which have been instituted under Article 136 of the Constitution, notice was issued on 26 July 2019. Since the appellants were represented by the first appellant in person, this Court, by its order dated 26 July 2019, directed that an amicus curiae be nominated by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Accordingly, Mr S. Mahendran, learned counsel, has been nominated as the amicus curiae, whom we have heard in support of the appeal.
3. The appellants are the father, mother, sister and brother of Dinesh Kumar, who died in the course of an accident on 31 January 2008. On the date of the incident, the deceased was 26 years of age and was engaged as a driver of a trailor lorry. While the vehicle was being driven on NH 12 in Kota, Rajasthan, a truck bearing registration No MH 19 Z 1696 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the trailor, resulting in the death of Dinesh Kumar. At the time of the accident, the deceased was in the employment of the first respondent. A claim under the 1923 Act was lodged before the Deputy Commissioner for Employee‘s Compensation, Madurai on 29 April 2013. On 26 March 2014, the claim was allowed by an award in the amount of Rs 4,33,060. The Deputy Commissioner had proceeded ex parte. The appellants filed an appeal, [CMA (MD) 344 of 2014] before the Madras High Court for enhancement of the compensation.
4. The High Court, by its judgment dated 23 November 2015, remanded the proceedings to the Deputy Commissioner for determination afresh. While remanding the proceedings, the High Court noted that though the appellants had filed a salary certificate as Exhibit P5 to establish that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs 32,000, no witness was examined on behalf of the employer to prove the salary certificate. However, acceding to the request of the appellants that they should be furnished with an opportunity to examine the employer‘s witness in support of Exhibit P5, the High Court considered it in the interests of justice to remand the proceedings.
5. On remand, the Commissioner for Workmen‘s Compensation, Madurai, by an order dated 4 March 2016, maintained the award of compensation in the amount of Rs 4,33,060. Before the Commissioner, on remand, the appellants examined PW2, the owner of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased. During the course of his evidence, he stated as follows:
“I am the 1st respondent in this case under W.C. Case No.74/2011 is under tail in this court is known to me. I received summons 3 times from the court. For the last two summons, as my own lorries were working in the other states and I also have to go there, I was unable to come and adduce witness for the court summon. The accident platform trailor lorry TN 28 AB 1933 belongs to Sathishkumar. The deceased Dinesh Kumar S/o Sivaraman worked as a driver. In 2008, (31.1.2008) when going to Pandicheri to Rajasthan Sironi before Kotta town the opposite coming tarras lorry dashed face to face and caused accident. As soon as the accident occurred in the same occurrence place Dineshkumar died. Before accident he worked for about 3 years. He was having proper driving license. He was having license for driving heavy vehicles. The Ex.P.5 monthly pay certificate was issued by me. In it, for deceased Dinesh Kumar I was paying Rs 32,000 per month (including food expenses) but pay of Rs 25,000. The vehicl
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
