EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION DIVISION Vs. ANOP KANWAR SMT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 22, 1995, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellants and maintained the order dated March 2, 1995 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Banswara, by which the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 67,780/- as compensation, imposed the penalty of Rs. 5000/- and awarded the cost of Rs. 100/- alongwith interest @ 6% per anum on the amount of compensation with effect from September 6, 1989.

(2.) RATAN Singh s/o Shri Gulab Singh-an employee in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Banswara, on September 6, 1991 died at Himmata Ki Ghati by electrocution as he was, at that time, working as Pump Driver on the Lift Canal. Smt. Anop Kanwar (mother of the deceased), Chandraveer Singh (son of the deceased) and Smt. Gaind Kanwar (widow of the deceased) filed the claim petition for the award of compensation of Rs. 67,776/ -. The claimants, in support of their claim, examined Chandraveer Singh and Lal Singh. The defendants, placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Adesh Kumar Gupta. During the pendency of the claim petition, Smt. Gaind Kanwar (widow of deceased Ratan Singh) breathed her last. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, after trial, awarded a sum of Rs. 67,780/- as compensation, imposed the penalty of Rs. 5000/- and awarded the cost of Rs. 100/- to the claimants alongwith interest @ 6% per annum by his award dated March 2, 1995, which was challenged by the appellants before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge dismissed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellants vide judgment dated May 22, 1995 and it is against this judgment that the appellants have filed this appeal.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the death of Ratan Singh took place not in the course of his employment and, therefore, the appellants are not liable for making payment of the compensation etc. , and the Workmen Compensation Commissioner committed an error in awarding compensation in favour of the claimants. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that while determining the amount of compensation the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has not determined it as required under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short, 'the Act' ). An amount of 40% of the monthly wages of the workman multiplied by the relevant factor can be applied and not the amount equal to 50% of the wages can be awarded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Courts below.