IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the assessment of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, including the factors to be considered in determining the amount, interest, and penalty.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik Rawal for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the respondents.

2. By way of the present Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.07.2013 passed by the learned Labour Court, Amreli in Workman Compensation (Non-fatal) Application No.3 of 2008.

3. The brief facts narrated in the present appeal are as under:-

3.1 The respondent -workman was working with the appellant as a driver. While driving S.T.Bus bearing No.GJ-18-V-6736 on 08.09.2003, a truck bearing No.GJ-4U-5433 came from opposite side in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the S.T.Bus. Resultantly, workman received serious injuries.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the respondent – original claimant was working with the appellant-Corporation as a driver. On 08.09.2003, during the course of employment, he met with an accident. Resultantly, he sustained injuries. Thereafter, he filed an application for compensation being Motor Accident Claim Petition No.816 of 2004 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) at Bhavnagar, which came to be dismissed. The workman filed Workman Compensation (Non-fatal) Application No.3 of 2008 before the learned Labour Court, Amreli, which came to be partly allowed. Hence, the present appellant is before this Court.

4.1 It is further submitted that there was a delay of approximately 5 years in filing the application before the learned Labour Court for compensation. The learned Labour Court framed issues at Ex.9 and after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the claim application and directed the appellant herein to deposit an amount of Rs.1,84,454/- with 12% simple interest from 08.10.2003 alongwith 25% penalty to the original claimant.

4.2 It is further submitted that the learned Labour Court has not properly considered the oral as well as documentary evidence while partly allowing the application. The learned Labour Court has misread the evidence adduced on record and awarded higher amount of compensation to the original claimant. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error by awarding 25% penalty and has not considered the fact that after the delay of approximately 5 years, the original claimant has preferred the claim petition before the learned Labour Court. Thus, the award of penalty at 25% is on higher side without any basis. Therefore, the observations and findings made by the learned Labour Court are perversed.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya for the respondent-original claimant has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Labour Court has rightly considered the materials available on record.

5.1 It is further submitted that the original claimant-respondent herein has expired leaving behind old parents and daughter. Motor Accident Claim Petition No.816 of 2004 for compensation was filed before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) at Bhavnagar, which came to be rejected on 12.12.2019 on the ground that the workman has preferred Workman Compensation (Non-Fatal) Application No.3 of 2008. Thus, looking to the age of the parents of deceased, the learned Labour Court has rightly awarded the percentage of penalty, which calls for no interference.

6. Having considered the submissions and the impugned judgment and award, it transpires that the original claimant – Devendrabhai Rameshchandra Bhatt was serving with the present appellant as a driver. On 08.09.2003, during the course of employment, workman was plying S.T.Bus bearing No.GJ-18-V-6736, and a truck bearing No.GJ-4U-5433 came from opposite side in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the Bus of workman. Resultantly, he received serious injuries on left leg and knee. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital and he was operated and was advised to take rest for 6 months. Since the workman sustained injuries on leg, the a