RAM DULARI Vs. H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the original claimant (mother of the deceased workman) is instituted under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') against that part of the award of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner'), Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the 'HPSEB'), which disallowed the claim of the appellant for the award of interest on the compensation amount and which also failed to impose penalty for default in paying the compensation within the time limited by law.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly stated. The deceased was employed as Junior Engineer in the Andhra Construction Sub-Division No. 1, Chirgaon, on the monthly wages of Rs. 1554.40P. He met with a fatal accident on July 25, 1984, as a result of a fall while travelling on duty in a truck owned by the first respondent (HPSEB). On a claim petition having been instituted by the appellant on January 16, 1985, the Commissioner issued a notice dated January 24, 1985, under Sub-section (I) of Section 10-A of the Act to the second respondent (Executive Engineer, Andhra Construction Sub-Division No. 1, Chirgaon), calling upon him to furnish the requisite particulars in the prescribed form and also to make "the necessary deposit" (of compensation) within thirty days of the receipt of the notice. A copy of the application for compensation filed by the appellant was also enclosed with the notice. The second respondent furnished the necessary particulars and filed two written replies on February 11/12, 1985. Reading the two documents together, what emerges is that while not disputing that the deceased died when on duty and stating that the amount of compensation, if admissible and decided by the Commissioner, will be duly deposited, the second respondent disclaimed the liability to pay compensation on the grounds that: (i) an ex-gratia grant in the sum of Rs. 14,500/- having been made in favour of the appellant and the sister of the deceased having been employed as clerk in the office of the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, HPSEB, no compensation under the Act was payable in view of the instructions issued in that regard by the HPSEB and (ii) the claimant(s), who were stated to be the family members of the deceased, were not "dependants" within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act. Ultimately, an exparte award in the sum of Rs. 88,548.00 came to be made on January 30, 1996. No adjustment/credit for the ex-gratia grant in the sum of Rs. 14,500/- was given in the award so made on the ground that it was "not adjustable against the amount of compensation to be awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act". The compensation amount was ordered to be paid "forthwith".

(3.) THE review application was granted and the case having been fixed for re-hearing pursuant to the grant 'of review, the respondents appear to have admitted that the deceased had died as a result of the injury caused to him by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and that the appellant was entitled to compensation in accordance with law. The only factor which the Commissioner was requested to take into consideration was that the HPSEB had made an ex-gratia grant in the sum of Rs. 14,500/- to the dependants of the deceased with a view to providing immediate relief soon after the fatal accident and that the said amount was required to be adjusted against the amount of compensation that may be held due and payable in accordance with law to the appellant. On behalf of the appellant, apart from the resistance offered to the claim of deduction as aforesaid, it was strenuously contended before the Commissioner that since the amount of compensation was not paid within one month from the date it fell due, simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on such amount was liable to be awarded in view of Section 4A(3) of the Act. The plea relating to the award of interest on the amount of compensation was resisted on behalf of the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that since no such demand was made by the appellant at any previous stage and the Commissioner had also not awarded interest in this ex-parte award and that since they had admitted the liability to pay compensation in the "first reply", they should not be held liable to pay interest. The Commissioner rejected the plea relating to the deduction of the sum of Rs. 14,500/-advanced on behalf of the respondents holding that the ex-gratia grant could not be adjusted against the amount of compensation awardable under the relevant provisions of the Act. The plea advanced by the claimant-appellant with regard to the award of interest was also rejected in the following words: Since the HPSEB had admitted the liability to pay the compensation whatever is to be awarded and they have also deposited the amount of compensation in this Court, therefore, the demand to pay the interest is not justifiable and hence rejected....