PUSHPA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALTHOUGH the Court does not wish to express its opinion on the subject finally, the proceedings under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), based, on tortious liability of the respondents, appear, prima facie, to be ill-conceived, because there may be no scope for a claim for compensation on that basis. The appellants may, however, have a justifiable claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Compensation Act"). The difficulty, however is that proceedings under the Compensation Act have not been initiated and they may be time barred now. To ask the appellants, who are the destitute widow and minor children of the deceased employee of the State, to institute proceedings under the Compensation Act now, and to seek condonation of delay, would result in protracted litigation and prolong their hardship and misery. Under the circumstances, it appears to be just and proper to direct the respondent-State, whose duty it is to ensure that the citizens have the right to an adequate means of livelihood (Article 39) and to secure that the operation of legal system promotes justice (Article 39-A) and to make effective provisions for securing the right to public assistance in cases of undeserved want (Article 41), to consider the voluntary implementation of the provisions of the Compensation Act at its own hand without driving the appellants to seek adjudication before the Competent Authority constituted under the said Act. For the said purpose, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, the appellants are directed to make a representation to the State Government (Secretary to the Government in the Animal Husbandry Department) within a period of IS days from today claiming compensation under the Compensation Act. The representation will be considered on merits and it will not be thrown out on the ground that the appellants have a remedy under the Compensation Act, that such remedy has not been invoked so far and that if it were to be invoked now, it would be time barred. The State Government, for the purposes ot the decision of the representation, take the relevant findings of fact recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Solan and Sirmur Districts at Nahan in MAC No. 10-N/2 of 1983, as binding on it. This direction has been given in view of the fact that no appeal has been preferred on behalf of the State Government against the said decision so far. If the appellants desire to be heard in parson such hearing shall be given to them by the Secretary to the Government in the Animal Husbandry Department. The State Government shall record a reasoned decision on the representation within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the said representation. The orders passed on the representation shall be placed on the record of this appeal on May 4, 19S4. The case to be treated as part-heard.

(2.) THE learned Advocate General has produced an order dated April 14, 1984, passed by the Financial Commissioner (Development) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh which has been made pursuant to the order made by this Court on March 17, 1984. According to the order pas sed by the Financial Commissioner, the appellants wherein become entitled to the payment of a sum of Rs. 6,600/- under the Compensation Act, in addition to the compensation in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- based on the no fault liability which has been awarded to them under the provisions of Chapter VII-A of the Act.

(3.) LET the respondents deposit in the Registry of this Court the amount to which the appellants are held entitled under the two Acts aforementioned with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the institution of the claim petition under the Act (April 19, 1983) within a period of four weeks from today.