An employer is liable to pay compensation and penalty under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, if a workman suffers an injury or dies as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

1. - This civil Misc. Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 02.09.2011, passed by the Employees' Compensation Commissioner, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter 'the Commissioner') whereby the respondents-claimants (hereinafter 'the claimants') as the legal representatives of the deceased Ramswaroop have been awarded compensation of Rs. 3,38,880/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. effective 20.01.2006 i.e. the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment as also penalty of Rs. 1,69,440/- under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1923').

2. Heard and perused the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2011, passed by the learned Commissioner.

3. It is an admitted fact that the deceased Ramswaroop was employed as a lineman with the appellant-Ajmer Discom, Bissau, District Jhunjhunu. It is also an admitted fact that while engaged in the aforesaid capacity, Ramswaroop was involved in an accident consequent to which he died on 05.11.2005. At the time of S.B. his death, the deceased Ramswaroop was earning Rs. 4,590/- p.m. and was aged about 45 years. Following Ramswaroop's death, his dependants i.e. Smt. Rukmani Devi, his widowed wife and his minor daughter Miss Sarita, filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Act of 1923 claiming compensation as also penalty from his employer i.e. the appellant, Ajmer Discom for its failure to pay the compensation within 30 days of the death of Ramswaroop.

4. In reply to the claim petition, even though the appellant Discom. admitted to the factum of Ramswaroop's employment, his age and his monthly wages, it sought to oppose the claim petition on the ground that the claimants had failed to prove that Ramswaroop was injured owing to an electric shock while working in his capacity as lineman with the appellant-Ajmer Discom. It was stated that Ramswaroop was not given any instruction to repair the feeder where he was alleged to have suffered an electric shock which turned out to be fatal.

5. The learned Commissioner on consideration of the defence of the appellant-Ajmer Discom found that in the admitted case of Ramswaroop's employment in the capacity of lineman with the appellant-Ajmer Discom and the accident of 06.02.2005 when he suffered an electric shock leading to injuries while on employment and his subsequent consequential death on 05.11.2005, the defence of the appellant-Ajmer Discom was not sustainable. It was held that in the admitted facts of Ramswaroop having been injured while working on the feeder owned by the S.B. appellant-Ajmer Discom in his capacity as its employee as lineman and having thereafter died consequent thereto, his dependants i.e. the claimants were entitled to compensation.

6. Taking into consideration the age of Ramswaroop as 45 years at the time of his death and his salary as Rs. 4,590/- p.m. with regard to there was no dispute, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 3,38,880/- to the claimants. Along therewith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 20.01.20096 till the date of payment was awarded as the compensation due had not been paid within 30 days of Ramswaroop's death when it was statutorily due. The learned Commissioner also held that the compensation payable to the dependants of Ramswaroop having been unnecessarily delayed, the appellant-Ajmer Discom was also liable to pay penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act of 1923.

7. Counsel for the appellant-Ajmer Discom has sought to agitate issue of liability of the appellant-Discom Discom on account of the fact that the claimants had not been able to prove that Ramswaroop was working on the feeder in terms of any direction of the Superior Officers or as part of his normal duty. The argument to my mind is without substance. The factum of Ramswaroop's employment as lineman with the appellant-Ajmer Discom having been admitted as also the fact of his having been injured while on duty owing to electric shock on 06.02.2005