The court affirmed the necessity of just compensation for the death of a contractual worker, emphasizing adherence to mandatory conciliation procedures and established compensation principles.

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard Shri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Madhulika Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is a very sad case in which a public utility service has approached this Court and is arguing in a manner which does not bear well for the public welfare for which the petitioner was established.

3. Present petition has been filed challenging the award dated 11.10.2018 whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat has awarded a sum of Rs.13,15,000/-.

4. The respondents herein who are the claimants had moved an application alleging that the husband of respondent no.1 was working as a contractual employee with the corporation (petitioners herein) and died while repairing a transformer. It was stated that the husband was working at the time of his death and was aged about 35 years and was drawing a remuneration of Rs.7,000/- per month, thus, it was claimed that the respondents/corporation should be directed to pay the amount of compensation. It was also stated that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-has been paid on account of death of the husband of claimant.

5. The respondents/corporation filed their written statement which is on record wherein they admitted that the husband of the claimant was working as a contractual worker with the corporation. It was also admitted that he died on account of an accident while at work. It was also admitted that the respondents herein are the claimants, however, the amount claimed was denied on the ground that an interim compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid through cheque.

6. With regard to jurisdiction, no reply was given as is evident from Para 6 of the written statement. It was also stated in Para 8 that all the claims made were not legally tenable.

7. The Permanent Lok Adalat recorded that after filing the written statement, the respondents/corporation did not appear. It was further recorded that from the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, it was clear that the respondents had failed to appear for conciliation and no reasons were specified for non-appearance and thereafter, it was recorded that on 06.05.2018, counsel for the respondents appeared in whose presence the points of determination were framed and thereafter on six dates, no one appeared for the respondents. Thereafter, the Permanent Lok Adalat recorded the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur; (2003) 7 SCC 484 wherein it was held that it is the duty of the Court and the Tribunal to award ‘just and reasonable’ compensation. Thereafter, the Permanent Lok Adalat admitting all the facts, which were not denied, to be correct proceeded to calculate the compensation taking into consideration the amount of monthly remuneration paid to the husband of the claimant at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per month total Rs.84,000/- per annum out of which 1/3rd was deducted on account of personal expenses and the dependency was assessed at Rs.56,000/- i.e. 2/3rd of the amount of remuneration paid to the husband of the claimant. As the age of the deceased at the time of death was 35 years, the compensation was awarded by multiplying Rs.56,000/- (assessed as dependency) with 25 i.e. the age of retirement. In addition thereto, the Permanent Lok Adalat awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of companionship, another Rs.5,000/- towards the fune