CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS Vs. KUSUMTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a First Appeal filed by the Conservator of Forest, Nagpur challenging the Judgment and Award dt.24.5.2001 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act in W.C.A. (F) Application no.24 of 1999, by which the appellants were directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.1,63,070/- with interest @ 12 % p.a. FACTS :

(2.) DECEASED Ganpatrao Dhote, the husband of original applicant no.1/respondent no.1 herein and the father of other respondents was in the employment of appellant/Forest department for about a period of twenty years before his death as a Forest Guard attached to Bhalewada bit under South Umrer Forest range. At the relevant time, the deceased was posted at Compartment No.421 having territorial area of 24 kms. His duty was to preserve the forest from theft and to see that no part of the forest catches fire and to extinguish the fire. On the fateful day, on 29.1.1999, with his usual uniform, the deceased went on duty towards the forest with his motor cycle and was patrolling in Edsamba Jungle. It appears that he was murdered by some unidentified persons and his dead body was kept near the nala under the earth. Having searched for about two days since the deceased did not return home, his dead body was found near nala in rotten condition. Thereafter, Officer visited the spot and after lodging the First Information Report, the police and the C.I.D. made investigation, but could not arrest the murderers. The dead body of Ganpat was sent for postmortem examination having serious injuries, which was identified. During the panchanama, it was found that a belt having emboss of Forest department was lying on the spot. Age of the deceased was 42 years. The dependents of the deceased, therefore, claimed compensation.

(3.) MR . M.P. Badar, learned Special Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that, by no stretch of imagination, the murder can be brought within the sweep of provisions of the Act of 1923 for the purposes of granting compensation and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Rita Devi and Others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anotherreported in 2000 (85) FLR 801. He then argued that 12 % interest granted by the Commissioner was not at all justified and there is no basis for awarding the said rate of interest. He further argued that deceased Ganpat being employee of the Forest department, his dependents were not entitled to any compensation under the Act of 1923 because his dependents were entitled to all the benefits due to the deceased/employee and therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1923 as to compensation stand excluded.