GANGA DEVI Vs. O S MOTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR enhancement, the respondent No. 1, who happens to be the wife of deceased workman, appellant No. 2, his mother and appellant Nos. 3 to 5, his minor children have challenged the award dated 17-11-2005 whereby the learned Commissioner has granted them a compensation of merely rs. 2,07,927/- without imposing a penalty and without granting them any interest on the said amount. In a nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that Roop Singh was hired as a driver on the jeep owned by the respondent No. 1. Thus, he was a workman employed by respondent no. 1. On 16-1 -2004, while driving the jeep, roop Singh met with an accident and expired. At the time of his death, he was 32 years old and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Since the jeep was insured and since the appellants depended on the deceased for theirfinancial needs, they filed aclaim petition against the respondents, the employer and the Insurance Company.

(2.) THE learned Commissioner framed five issues and after going through the oral and documentary evidence granted the compensation as aforementioned vide award dated 17-1-2005. Since the appellants are still aggrieved by the amount of compensation, they have filed the present appeal before this Court.

(3.) MR. Vinay Mathur, the learned Counsel for appellants, has raised three contentions before this Court; firstly, that the income assessed by the learned Commissioner is on the lower side. Secondly, that only 6% interest has been granted by the learned commissioner on the compensation amount where it should have been 12%. Thirdly, that no penalty has been imposed upon the employer as required by Section 4-A of the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short ). According to Section 4-A, in case the employer has defaulted in paying the compensation from the date it fell due, the commissioner is mandatorily required to impose penalty on the employer. Since the learned Commissioner has not imposed any penalty, he has failed to exercise a mandatory legal duty imposed upon him by Section 4-A of the Act.