LAXMI PAT SINGHAL Vs. NASEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fact remains that the deceased was appointed as cleaner by the owner of the truck no. H. R. 38 F 201. He was going by the said truck to Anjar, Gujarat and when the truck reached to Sojat City near Parihar hotel, the truck met with accident with truck no. R. J. 142 g- 7869 and the deceased died on the spot. The insurance of the truck was valid at the time of accident. He was aged about 23 years. The claimant/respondent, mother of the deceased, had stated in the Court of Commissioner of workmen's Compensation that the deceased was getting salary about Rs. 4000/- per month from the owner. But the owner of the truck had said therein that he was paying Rs. 1,800/- per month to the deceased. The claimant did not submit any document as evidence in support of the salary. However, the Commissioner fixed the compensation of Rs. 3,04,560/ -. The commissioner also held that the owner of the truck caused delay in paying the compensation to the claimant, therefore, he is liable to pay simple interest @ 10% per year and further held that the owner of the truck for the period of nine months will pay interest of Rs. 22,842/ -. For the interest the notice was issued to the owner under section 4-A (3) of Workmen's Compensation act, 1923 (hereinafter called as the Act, 1923 ).

(2.) ALL the appeals are arising out of selfsame claim of compensation. At first f. A. F. O. No. 293/2008 had been preferred by the owner when he was fastened with the liability of paying interest. A single Judge of this Court by an order dated January 31, 2008 was pleased to stay the order on certain conditions. Subsequently the insurance company had preferred the appeal being f. A. F. O. No. 335/2008 taking the plea that the judgment and award passed by the commissioner is without jurisdiction, from which a Division Bench of this High Court upon being satisfied with the proviso to Section 21 (1)of the Act, 1923, was pleased to direct that the entire awarded amount deposited by the insurance company will not be released without the leave of the Court. Lastly, when inspite of the order of the learned single Judge passed on january 31, 2008 in F. A. F. O. No. 293/2008 staying the operation of the order on certain conditions, the Commissioner did pass an order imposing penalty for non payment of compensation, the same was also challenged by the owner in F. A. F. O. No. 938/2008.

(3.) ALL the appeals were directed for analogous hearing when the parties agreed for the same on informal papers. It is pertinent to mention sitting in this jurisdiction that on numerous occasions we find several orders were passed by the commissioner apparently de hors the law when we came to know that in the State of U. P. the posts of the Commissioner of Workmen's compensation is being filled up by the executive officers but not by the Judicial officers either sitting or retired or calling upon from the lawyers or the persons accustomed with the law. In Surendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U. P. and Others 2002-II-LLJ-1119 (All) a Division Bench of this High Court has already held to that extent but the State government has not found any opportunity to follow the same. Relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this High court is as follows at p. 1120: