NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SAMUTI BAI SMT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act) is directed against the order dated August 2, 1994, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Bhopal in Claim Case No. 7/89 (WCA), whereby the respondents No. 1 to 5 have been awarded a sum of Rs. 44,201 as compensation plus penalty of Rs. 15,000 with interest @ 6% p. a. from the day to the incident, i. e. May 5, 1989.

(2.) THE case of the Respondents No. 1 to 5 was that the workman Gendalal was working with the respondent No. 6, M/s. Ashok Stone Crushing Company, Village Jhirnia, Thesil Hoozur, District Bhopal. During the course of employment, he died. At the time of his death, he was aged about 15 years and his monthly wages were Rs. 600. It appears that Respondent No. 6 has denied the claim of the Respondents 1 to 5. So far as Respondents No. 2 to 4 were concerned, no written statement was filed. The appellant also denied the entire allegation, made in the application. Under those circumstances the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation framed six issues. In support of her case. Respondent No. 1 was examined as a witness. No evidence was led either by the Respondent No. 6 or any other respondent. Nor did the appellant lead any evidence. In such circumstances, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation had no option, but to grant the claim of the Respondents No. 1 to 5. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation came to the conclusion that upon the death of Gendalal, the Respondents No. 1 to 5 were entitled to Rs. 44,201 by way of compeasation. It also found that the Respondents No. 6 to 9 and the appellant had not cared either to make a provisional payment to the Respondents No. 1 to 5, or to pay the entire amount of compensation due against them. Under such circumstances, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000 against the appellant as well as the Respondents No. 6 to 9.

(3.) IN this appeal, the question that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was unaware about the employment, wages and the cause of death of Gendalal. The appellant was also unaware whether Gendalal was a workman with the Respondents No. 6 to 9. Therefore, no amount was deposited and they filed written statement denying the liability, and consequently the appellant cannot be held to be responsible for non payment of Rs. 44,201 as compensation when it became due. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, did dispute that the compensation became due on the death of Gendalal. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to number of decisions, viz. , Sakinabibi and Anr. v. Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation 1992 ACJ 603, Rajni Rani and Ors. v. Om Parkash and Anr. (1993-I-LLJ-619) (Pandh), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jevaramma and Ors. (1994-III-LLJ (Supp.)-1036) (Kant) Oriental Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Kamarun Bibi and Anr. 1993 ACJ 171, Shanthamma and Ors. v. Kamalamma and Anr. 1993 ACJ 453, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Mujataba Khan and Anr. 1994-I-LLJ-259 (AP) and Gautam Transport, Bhavnagar v. Jiluben Huseinbhai and Ors. 1989 ACJ 587 and argued that the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation should not have awarded penalty, under the facts and circumstances of the case.