Delhi High Court
Kashmir Kaur vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation And ... on 7 February, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 347/2013
% 7th February, 2014
KASHMIR KAUR ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Chauhan, Adv.
Versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION AND ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.S. Rao, Law Officer,
DMRC/R-1.
Ms. Shruti Shukla, Adv. for Mr.
Suman Bagga, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923 impugning the judgment of the Commissioner
dated 13.09.2012 which has denied penalty in terms of Section 4 A of the
Act to the applicant but was awarded interest under the said Section as
deposit was made after a period of 30 days of the accident.
2. The impugned judgment rightly holds that the main judgement dated
22.7.2010 has become final and by which specific amount of compensation
of Rs. 4,50,500/- was awarded to the appellant. Commissioner rightly
noticed that this specific amount cannot be varied although rate of wages
could have been higher and different for calculation of original
compensation at an amount higher than the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- as
granted by the main judgment dated 22.7.2010, inasmuch as, if the
appellant/applicant was aggrieved then the remedy would have been to
argue for variation in the compensation as awarded by the main judgment
dated 22.7.2010, and which was not done by filing an appeal or review
petition. It has, therefore, rightly been held by the Commissioner that in a
subsequent application under Section 4 A finality of the amount of
compensation granted by the main judgement dated 22.7.2010 cannot be
varied.
3. Counsel for appellant argued that the appellant had applied for review
of the judgment by the subject application which has been decided by the
impugned judgment, however, I note that by the subject application there is
no review of the judgment dated 22.7.2010 which is sought by the applicant
and in the application which has been disposed of by the impugned
judgment dated 13.09.2012 only relief under Section 4 A was sought for
enhancement of the compensation of amount of award on account of the
wage structure having reviewed upwards, but the judgment dated 22.7.2010
applied a lower wage rate. Therefore, the application which has been
disposed of by the impugned judgment was not of review against the
impugned judgment which was passed much earlier on 22.7.2010 but only
for seeking benefit under Section 4 A of the Act, and which application can
only be for grant of interest and penalty which is the subject matter of
Section 4 A post the main judgement becoming final i.e Section 4 A
proceedings are not in the nature of seeking review but on the contrary
proceeds on the finality achieved of the main judgment.
4. In view of above, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgement,
and no substantial question of law arises under Section 30 of the Act, and
the same is therefore dismissed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
FEBRUARY 07, 2014/cl
