UBEL COMPANY Vs. JASWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the case set up by the claimants, on 11.5.1999 at about 4.45 PM, Manjit Singh (since deceased), while working in the factory of appellant slipped, fell on pucca floor and became unconscious. He was first removed to clinic of Dr.Dhawan and then referred to Government Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to the said injury at 1.40 PM on 12.5.1999. The widow and two minor children of the deceased -Manjit Singh preferred a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') before the Commissioner under the Act on 27.1.2000. The respondents -appellant did not choose to appear despite service, therefore, proceeded against ex parte on 21.12.2000 and the claimants were held entitled to compensation. When the orders were being executed the respondents - appellant filed an application for setting aside ex parte, which was allowed on 12.4.2001. Respondent No.1 -appellant claimed that M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited was the Insurance Company, who was impleaded as necessary party. The counsel for the appellant also stated that policy obtained by it was not under the Act but was a Group Personal Accident Policy. Since, the benefits under the Group Personal Accident Policy could not be agitated by the claimants before the Railway Tribunal, therefore, they chose to move an application before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (for short 'the Forum') vide complaint No.192 dated 4.9.2002 whereas, the claim petition before the Commissioner under the Act dated 27.1.2000 continued. The Forum vide its order dated 25.02.2003 awarded a claim of Rs.2.50 lacs with interest to the claimants and observed that the claimants would withdraw the claim pending before the Commissioner under the Act so far as it relates to the claim under the Group Personal Accident Policy No.16101/42/42001/2000 as the amount, in terms of the policy, has to be paid by the insurance company and not by the employer. The said order dated 25.2.2003 was challenged by the insurance company before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (for short 'the Commission') and the amount of Rs.2.50 lac was reduced to Rs.1.25 lac. While decided the claim petition, the Commissioner under the Act held that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and the deceased. The death had occurred during the course of employment. The compensation was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,97,060/ -. However, the amount of Rs.1.25 lac already awarded by the Commission was ordered to be deducted and a balance sum of Rs.72,060/ - was ordered to be paid with statutory interest @ 12% in terms of Section 4A(3)(a) of the act on the amount of Rs.1,97,060/ - from the date of accident till 11.8.2008 i.e. upto the date of order passed by the Commission for payment of Rs.1.25 lac and on the remaining amount of Rs.72,060/ - thereafter till actual payment.

(2.) THE only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant challenging the impunged order dated 6.5.2009 is that the claimants could not have taken benefits for exhausting two remedies at the same time in respect of one accident. It is submitted that in the face of the pendency of claim petition under the Act filed on 27.1.2000, the subsequent application before the Commission could not have been filed or maintained by the claimants and if the Commission had decided the claim of the appellants on 11.8.2008, present claim petition under the Act should not have been decided in favour of the claimants on 6.5.2009 by the Commissioner.

(3.) THE argument though appears to be attractive but it has no legal force because the claimants had filed application under the Act on 27.01.2000, which was decided ex parte on 21.12.2000 in which, after the ex parte proceedings were set aside at the instance of the appellant, it was alleged that the appellant had insured the deceased under the Group Personal Accident Policy, as a result of which claimants had to file appropriate proceedings before the Consumer Court against the Insurance Company raising their grievance in respect of the amount of insurance to which they were entitled immediately after the death of Manjit Singh.