U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. R.M. vs Narendra Singh
2019 Latest Caselaw 3881 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR
 
Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 401 of 2015
 

 
Appellant :- U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru. R.M.
 
Respondent :- Narendra Singh
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kailash Nath,Nripendra Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajneesh Tripathi,Shiv Prakash
 

 
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

Present F.A.F.O. has been filed against the judgment and award dated 8.12.2014 passed by Employee's Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad Region Moradabad in W.C.A. Case No.62/2013, Narendra Singh Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. awarding compensation of Rs.12,82,476/- to claimant-respondent with interest @ 12% per annum.

Brief facts relating to the case are that Narendra Singh filed claim petition No.62 of 2013 before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Moradabad with the averments that he was working as a contract driver for carrying U.P.S.R.T.C. Bus No.UP T 9468 of Bareilly Dehat to Delhi and on 25.7.2012, when he was carrying bus under instructions of U.P.S.R.T.C., Bareilly along with conductor Anurodh Kumar Gautam from Budaun to Anand Vihar Delhi, near Village Kurau, District Budaun, on turn ahead passenger shed, tanker No. HR 38 F 7516 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the bus on right side due to which front portion of bus was damaged and petitioner sustained grievous injuries, with injuries to certain passengers of bus and in the accident claimant sustained fractures in his right leg and right hand with damage of his left eye and injuries all over the body.

On pleadings of parties the Compensation Commissioner framed following three issues:

1. Whether claimant Narendra Singh was working as contract driver on Bus No.UP 25 T 9468 of O.P. No.1 and sustained grievous injuries in the accident dated 25.7.2012. If so, its effect;

2. Whether claimant is entitled to any compensation in this case under the provisions of Act, if so, how much;

3. What is the statutory liability of O.P. for payment of interest and penalty in this case. To what extent of penalty and at which rate the interest, if any is payable. With complete details.

After completion of parties evidence wherein two witnesses were produced by each party claimant as well as O.P., U.P.S.R.T.C., Compensation Commissioner heard arguments and disposed of the case by impugned award.

Heard Shri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Shiv Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record as well as lower court record.

Learned counsel for the appellant has raised only a single substantial question of law with regard to non disposal of issue No.3 by the Compensation Commissioner. He pointed out that in the impugned award learned Compensation Commissioner has given findings on issue No.1 & 2, but there is no finding on issue No.3 and so the impugned award is liable to be set aside and matter is required to be remanded back to the Compensation Commissioner for disposal afresh as finding on all the 3 issues was mandatory before passing of final order of award.

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and award and contended that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and appeal is legally not maintainable; that issue Nos.2 & 3 are relates to the same question of compensation; that though Compensation Commissioner has not made any heading with regard to issue No.3, but after hearing parties on all the issues it has disposed of issue No.3 along with issue No.2 on last page of impugned award and has awarded interest at prescribed rate of 12% per annum while no penalty has been imposed rather for deciding extent of penalty notice under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employee's Compensation Act has been issued to O.P.

Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record I find that Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides wide powers to appellate court to pass any decree or make any order, which ought to have been passed or made to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require.

It is pertinent to mention that part of the impugned judgment granting compensation of Rs.12,82,476/- is not challenged and need not discussions.

Only point raised by appellant that interest has been awarded by the Compensation Commissioner without giving any findings on issue No.3. Under Issue No.3 the Compensation Commissioner was required to decide the rate of interest as well as extent of penalty. By the impugned award the Compensation Commissioner has not imposed any penalty and has issued notice under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employee's Compensation Act for deciding its extent and has awarded interest @ 12% per annum, which is statutory rate of interest in view of provisions of Section 4A(3)(a) of Employee's Compensation Act, which provides that Commissioner shall "direct that the employer shall in addition to the amount of arrears, pay simple interest thereon @ 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by Central Government, by notification in the official gazette, on the amount due."

The Employee's Compensation Act is a public interest legislation and in such cases the technicalities have no scope.The perusal of impugned award on lower court record and its certified copy at page numbers 19 to 24 in paper book of appeal shows that findings on issue No.2 started from page No.4 have concluded in third para at page No.5 with the sentence "Hence claimant is also entitled to get Rs.3,14,508/- as medical expenses apart from the compensation (calculated earlier in that para). After that a fresh para 4 has started which is last para before operative portion of order, wherein Compensation Commissioner has dealt with question of interest and penalty regarding which issue No.3 was framed and it appears that due to inadvertent typographical mistake, before above para heading "Issue No.3" has left to be mentioned.

In the circumstances mere for the reason of not putting heading "Issue No.3" before para 4 at page 5 of impugned order it will not be correct that the Compensation Commissioner did not dispose of issue No.3. Otherwise also issue No.3 appears to have been disposed of along with issue No.2 being related to each other.

Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show as to whether any prejudice is being caused to appellant mere for the reason that before awarding interest on the compensation amount, which has been awarded at statutory rate the Compensation Commissioner has failed to put heading with regard to disposal of issue No.3. No other substantial question of law arises in the appeal or raised by appellant.

In view of the discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that there is no illegality, irregularity or manifest error of fact or law in the impugned award and no fruitful purpose will be served by remanding the case for putting heading with regard to issue No.3. The Compensation Commissioner has dealt with all issues and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned award. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

Appeal is dismissed.

Let lower court record be sent back to court below along with copy of this judgment for ascertaining necessary compliance.

Order Date :- 1.5.2019

T. Sinha