KANPUR JAL SANSTHAN Vs. CHAMPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This appeal has been preferred by the appellants from the judgment and order dated 6.9.2007, passed by the concerned Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,89,280 as compensation payable to the claimant/s and in case of default payment of interest @ 6% simple interest per annum from the date of accident i.e., 2.10.2002, till the date of payment.

(2.) BY challenging such judgment and order in this appeal, Mr. Anil Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Commissioner is contrary to law and equity. According to him, the deceased died in an accident on 2.10.2002. The application to have compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, was made on 2.5.2006 i.e., after about four years from the date of accident. According to law, such type of application have to be made within a period of two years form the date of occurrence. However, the Commissioner is not powerless to decide the claim for compensation even beyond such period provided he is satisfied with the sufficiency of reasons for condoning the delay. Fact remains that after the death of deceased, the widow was given service in appropriate department of the office where her husband was working under Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The service was given to the widow when other members of the family were minors. Additionally other benefits inclusive of family pension were given to the widow of the deceased. According to him, the claimant cannot be doubly benefited by means of action under the aforesaid Rules, 1974 as well as under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

(3.) HE further relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad and others v. Sarvarunnisa Begum, 2008 (2) ESC 212 (SC), to establish that when in a case of death of the husband in harness the widow expressed her willingness to accept the additional monetary benefits in lieu of employment, as per the scheme, apart from other benefits to get over the financial constraints on account of sudden death, she would not be entitled to claim the compassionate appointment. By citing this judgment, he said that his case is other way round. HEre the compassionate appointment has already been received by the widow apart from other benefits, therefore, she cannot get further compensation.