DIVISIONAL ENGINEER M P ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. MANTOBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT figured as the co-claimant with her three minor children aged between 10 years and 3 years in preferring claim for compensation against the appellants before the ommissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Gwalior. Her husband was in service of M. P. Electricity Board, (herein appellant No. 2) and he met his death on 7th October 1984 in a fatal accident that took place on that date. Her claim was accepted and an award was passed against the appellants for payment to the claimants of a sum of Rs. 20,798/-as compensation and a further sum of Rs. 1,000/-as penalty. By the same award, interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim was also ordered to be paid.

(2.) THIS appeal, filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for short, the 'w. C. Act' or 'act', was heard by one of us (Dr. T. N. Singh, J), sitting singly and on an order having been made at the time of admission of the appeal itself for the hearing to be expedited, care was taken to dispose of the matter expeditiously. It was heard on 19th August 1987 and 25th August 1987, but on 7th September 1987, the following question of law was referred for the opinion of a Division Bench:

(3.) IN the instant case, claimant/respondent had been paid by the appellant/employer a sum of Rs. 2,500/-as an ex gratia payment and appellant's counsel contended that credit in respect thereof should be given and the award be modified accordingly. It became necessary to make this reference as it was not possible to accept the contention pressed by appellants' counsel relying on a decision of a learned single Judge of this court in the case of M. RS. R. T. C. v. Usha Bai, 1985 MPWN 546. Indeed, in the order of reference it had to be mentioned that the correctness of the view expressed in Usha Bai's case (supra) needs to be examined because the consensus of judicial authorities cited at the Bar on that date made it necessary to do so. We would, therefore, have occasion to look into the authorities wherein a contrary view was taken. But, we would first look at Usha Bai's case (supra) to appreciate the rationale of that decision.