Delhi Transport Corporation vs Ram Phal
2013 Latest Caselaw 4436 Del

*    HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                      FAO 265/2012

                       Decided on : 26th September, 2013


    DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION             ..... Appellant
                 Through Ms. Rashmi Priya, Adv. for
                         Mr. J.S. Bhasin, Adv.

                       versus

    RAM PHAL                                         ..... Respondent
                       Through      Ms. Pratima N. Chauhan, Adv.


    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
    V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 20th January, 2012

passed in a case tilted Shri Ram Phal Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation, by virtue of which the Commissioner Workmen's

Compensation has directed the payment of compensation of Rs.

83,145/- along with interest @6% to the employee from the date of

the accident till the actual payment is made.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is

that the accident had taken place on 29 th April, 1995 while the applicant was driving a bus bearing no. DL-IP-9699, near Baraut,

Bahadurgarh. It has been stated that the petition for claiming of

compensation was filed almost after a decade in the year 2005, and

therefore the only point on the basis of which the present appeal is

being contested is with regard to the payment of interest for the

period for which the respondent did not invoke the jurisdiction of the

Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for getting the

compensation. It is accordingly contended by the learned counsel for

the appellant that the respondent ought not to be given interest for

a period of ten years when he himself did not approach the statutory

authorities for the payment of compensation.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that

according to Section 4 (A) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923,

the liability of the employer to pay compensation arises within thirty

days from the date of the accident. It is further contended that in the

instant case the appellant Corporation which was under an obligation

ought to have deposited the amount of compensation with the

Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, even if the respondent did

not approach the Commissioner for his requisite relief. The learned counsel contended since the appellant had failed to do so they were in

breach of their statutory duties under the Workmen's Compensation

Act 1923, and this act on their part cannot be condoned. In addition to

this, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the

respondent/applicant had filed a petition to claim compensation after

expiry of ten years but delay in filing the petition was condoned by

the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation despite opposition to

the same by the appellant and once the said delay has been condoned,

the applicant is relegated back to the date of accident for the

purpose of entitling him payment of compensation in terms of the

statutory provision after expiry of thirty days. It is stated that on the

frivolous plea the respondent cannot be denied the benefit of interest.

In order to justify the claim of interest, the learned counsel for the

respondent has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in

Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Shrinivas Sabata & Anr., AIR 1976 SC

222.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that

even if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is

considered, the only plea which arises between the amounts with regard to the payment of interest comes to Rs. 13,300/- for a period of

ten years @6%. It is urged this quantum is so meagre that it ought

not to be interfered keeping in view the larger objective of the

legislation.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the

counsel for the parties.

6. I feel there is a considerable merit in the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant being a

Corporation and a Government body was under the statutory

obligation to have deposited the amount with the Commissioner

Workmen's Compensation even if the claim by the respondent was

not filed at that stage. Since it failed to discharge its statutory

duties it could not take a plea of belated filing of the claim by the

victim only to deprive him all the benefit as available to him under

the Workmen's Compensation Act.

7. In the instant case there is no dispute to the fact that the

respondent workman who was employed as a driver had suffered

30% disability as a consequence of an accident, but in fact it has been

held that the said disability tantamount to 100% disability as he has become unfit to drive vehicle.

8. Keeping in view these facts, I feel that it would be unfair to

reduce the component of interest which has been ordered to be paid

to the respondent. More so when the objective of the legislation is

ameliorative in nature.

9. No other substantial question of law arises from the appeal. The

appeal is accordingly dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 mg