Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 73
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Smt. Hashmi – Appellant
Versus
Jalaluddin and Another – Respondents
Appeal From Order Nos. 210, 236 of 2011
Decided On : 25-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Z.U. Siddiquie.
For the Respondent: Mr. M.K. Goyal.
The main legal point established is the interpretation of the definition of 'dependent' under Section 2(d) of the Workmens’ Compensation Act and the legal liability of the insurer to pay interest on compensation.
Headnote:
Workmens’ Compensation Act - Dependents - Section 2(d)
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation under the Workmens’ Compensation Act, 1923 for the death of their son due to accidental electrocution while working as a cleaner on a vehicle. The Deputy Labour Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 2,82,565 to the claimants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimants were dependent on the deceased and upheld the Deputy Labour Commissioner's decision. It also held that the claimants were not entitled to interest on the compensation as it was paid within the stipulated time.
Issues: The main issues were whether the claimants were dependents as per the Act's definition and the calculation of compensation amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of 'dependent' under Section 2(d) of the Act and the precedent set by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a similar case. It also emphasized the legal liability of the insurer to pay interest on compensation if not paid within the specified time.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed, and the Deputy Labour Commissioner's order was confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. As both the appeal arises out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of together by the common judgment.
2. In Appeal from Order No. 236 of 2011, the Insurance Company has appealed against the order passed by the Competent Authority (Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region/Haldwani, District Nainital), in W.C.A. No. 62 of 2005, under the Workmens’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’ for brevity), whereby the Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 2,82,656/- within a period of one month from the date of passing of the award.
3. The order-sheet reveals that A.O. No. 236 of 2011, which has been preferred by the Insurance Company, has been admitted by this Court as per the order dated 01.07.2011, on the following substantial question of law:
Whether the claimants/applicants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4, are covered within the definition of dependant as provided under Section 2(d) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923?
4. The Appeal from Order No. 210 of 2011 has been admitted as reflected in the order-sheet dated 15.06.2011, on the substantial question of law framed in the memo of appeal. The memo of appeal reflects that two substantial questions of law are to be decided there. The same reads as under:
(i) Whether the awarded compensation of Rs. 2,82,656/- to the appellant/claimant in stead of Rs. 4,50,000/- as claimed by her, is proper?
(ii) Whether the rate of interest granted by the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner is correct and whether under Section 4-A(3) of the Act, a higher interest rate will be applicable from the date of default?
5. The claimant namely, Naimuddin and three others, preferred the original application under the provisions of the Act, claiming that his son Akram was working as a cleaner on the vehicle of respondent No. 1, bearing Registration No. UHB-5398. On 28.07.2005, while discharging his duties because of accidental electrocution, Akram died. At the time of death, his age was 20 years, and he was getting a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month from respondent No. 1. Therefore, the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- along with 12 per cent interest thereon.
6. The respondent No. 2, i.e. the Insurance Company in its written statement technically denied all the contentions made by the claimants, but did not deny the fact that the vehicle in question was insured with it.
7. The respondent No. 1, i.e. the employer, in his written statement admitted that the deceased was engaged in his vehicle and he died during such employment. The deceased was getting a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month towards the wages and Rs. 50/- per day towards daily expenses. Respondent No. 1 also submitted that the vehicle in question was insured validly with respondent No. 2 Insurance Company, and all the documents of the vehicle were valid. Hence, respondent No. 1 submitted that the respondent No. 2 is liable to pay the compensation.
8. On such pleadings, the learned Deputy Labour Commissioner addressed itself to decide the question whether the respondents are entitled to pay compensation to the claimants? Four witnesses, including Sri Naimuddin, father of the deceased, were examined on behalf of the claimants. The claimants supported their claim that the deceased was employed with respondent No. 1 as a cleaner in the vehicle having the aforesaid registration number. The deceased was 20 years old healthy young man, getting a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as wages. It is further stated by the witness (father of the deceased) that his son used to give money to him, and from which day-to-day expenses of the family were met. He further stated that two of his daughters are still to be married, and after death of his son, his wife is remaining ill continuously, as such, he is facing hardship in meeting his domestic expenses. This witness further stated that he, his wife, and two daughters were dependent upon the income of the said deceased. A panchna
