SUNITA Vs. JAMMU PIGMENTS PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Widow of the deceased employee has filed the present appeal in this Court, impugning the award passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kathua (in short, 'the Commissioner') under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking further enhancement of compensation and also for a direction to award statutory interest and penalty on the amount of compensation.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased husband of the appellant No. 1, namely, Sh. Shashi Paul was employed as a driver with private respondents, who died in a road accident on 27.07.2011, during the course of his employment. He was 38 years of age at the time of his death. His monthly salary was = 10,000/-, however, the Commissioner has wrongly taken the same as = 6,000/- per month and calculated the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to a voucher produced along with the present appeal, as Annexure A-1, showing the payment of = 10,000/- as salary. He further submitted that in addition to the stand taken by the appellants before the Commissioner, which was supported by her oral evidence as well as the evidence of Mr. Yogesh Singh, who was working as Conductor on the Truck, on which the husband of the appellant No. 1 was the driver, it was fully established that the deceased was getting salary of = 10,000/- per month. In the hght of the oral evidence led by the appellants, which was not controverted by the respondents by leading any evidence, the same deserves to be accepted and compensation assessed in terms of the formula provided in Section 4 of the Act. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in Mallikarjun Gundappa Patil and ors. Vs. Ambadas Baburao Vardekara and ors., 2005 (1) ALL MR 21.

(3.) It was further submitted that in terms of Section 4 A of the Act on account of delay in payment of the compensation, the appellant is also entitled to terest and further if there was no justification for delay in payment of compensation to the victim, penalty of 50% can be imposed. The Commussioner has failed to exercise that jurisdiction. In the case in hand, the employer though had initially filed reply to the claim petition but thereafter failed to put in appearance. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Siby George and ors., AIR 2012 SC 3144 and Kerala State Electricity Board and another Fs. Palsala K. and another etc. etc., ATR 1999 SC 33502.