Northern Power Distribution Company ... vs The Commissioner For Employees And 3 ...

Telangana High Court

Northern Power Distribution Company ... vs The Commissioner For Employees And 3 ... on 12 January, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI


       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.430 of 2013
                     and 227 of 2014

COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against order

dated 15.09.2012 in W.C.No.11 of 2011 F on the file of the

Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Deputy

Commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as

'Commissioner'). The said claim application was filed by the

applicants therein seeking compensation for death of one V.

Vidyasagar (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') and the same

was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.6,79,616/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the applicants before the

Commissioner filed C.M.A.No.430 of 2013 seeking enhancement of

compensation and the opposite parties before the Commissioner

filed C.M.A.No.227 of 2014 seeking to set aside the impugned

order and dismiss the claim application. Since both the appeals

are arising out of same order, they are being dealt with by way of

this common judgment.

2. The applicants before the Commissioner are appellants in

C.M.A.No.430 of 2013 and respondent Nos.2 to 4 in C.M.A.No.227

of 2014. The opposite parties before the Commissioner are 2 MGP,J CMA_430_2013 & CMA_227_2014

appellants in C.M.A.No.227 of 2014 and respondents in

C.M.A.No.430 of 2013. For the sake of convenience, the parties

are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the

Commissioner.

3. It is the case of the applicants that applicant No.1 is wife

and applicant Nos.2 and 3 are children of the deceased. The

deceased was working as Assistant Lineman under opposite

parties. He was aged about 45 years and was being paid an

amount of Rs.17,000/- per month towards wages. On,

10.03.2009 at about 04:50 PM, while working at Dubba 33/11 KV

Sub Station, the deceased climbed the electrical pole for repairing

and received electric shock, as such, he fell down from the pole

and sustained grievous injuries on head and other parts of the

body. Immediately, he was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Hospital,

Nizamabad, where he died at 07:00 PM on the same day. In this

regard, a case was registered in Crime No.57 of 2003 on the file of

III Town Police Station, Nizamabad on 11.03.2009. It is the case

of the applicants that the deceased died during the course and out

of his employment under both the opposite parties. Hence, the 3 MGP,J CMA_430_2013 & CMA_227_2014

present claim application is filed seeking compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- for death of the deceased.

4. The opposite parties filed their counter admitting the

employment of the deceased and occurrence of the accident and

death of the deceased on 10.03.2009 at about 16:45 hours due to

the electrical shock. It is their further case that the deceased

being paid an amount of Rs.16,100/- per month towards gross

salary. Furthermore, subsequent to the death of the deceased his

pensioner benefits were sanctioned and paid to his legal heirs and

applicant No.2 herein was appointed as office subordinate under

the employment of the opposite parties on 21.12.2009 at Central

Office (Account Wing), Nizamabad, on compassionate grounds.

Hence, contended that the present claim application is not

maintainable and prayed to dismiss the same.

5. In support of their case, the applicants got examined A.W.1

and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. In favour of both the opposite

parties, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were got marked.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues

were framed by the Commissioner:

MGP,J CMA_430_2013 & CMA_227_2014

"1.Whether V. Vidyasagar deceased workman, died of electrocution 10.03.2009 while discharging his duties in the course of his employment under opposite parties?

2. Who are liable to pay compensation to the applicants? And

3. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicants?"

7. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the

Commissioner held that the applicants have successfully proved

their case. Hence, the claim application was partly allowed

holding that both the opposite parties were liable to pay

compensation and granted an amount of Rs.6,79,616/- towards

compensation payable to the applicants.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants i.e., appellants in

C.M.A.No.430 of 2013 contended that the Commissioner has erred

in considering the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.8,000/-

per month instead of Rs.17,000/- per month. It is further

contended that the Commissioner has failed to grant interest at

12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of the

accident till the date of deposit.

MGP,J CMA_430_2013 & CMA_227_2014

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite parties i.e.,

appellants in C.M.A.No.227 of 2014 contended that the

Commissioner determined the salary of the deceased on higher

side at Rs.8,000/- per month. The deceased died on 10.03.2009

and as on the said date, as per the Workmen's Compensation Act,

1923 (for short 'the Act'), though, the salary/wages of the

workman exceeds Rs.4,000/-, the same has to be restricted to

Rs.4,000/- per month only. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal

and set aside the impugned order.

11. Now the point for determination is as follows:

"Whether the applicants are entitled for enhancement of compensation and interest on the same as prayed for or whether the compensation granted by the Commissioner is on higher side and the same has to be reduced?"

Point:

12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and material

placed on record. Applicant No.1 was examined as A.W.1 and she

reiterated the contents of the claim application in her evidence.

Though, she was cross-examined, nothing contrary was elicited.

In support of their case, the applicants got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. 6

MGP,J CMA_430_2013 & CMA_227_2014

13. On the other hand, on behalf of opposite parties, R.W.1, who

is Junior Accounts Officer, was examined. He got marked Exs.B-1

to B-5 in support of the case of the opposite parties. R.W.1

deposed that the deceased was appointed as helper on 31.07.1990

and was later promoted as Assistant Lineman on 22.12.1996 and

on 10.03.2009, while attending his duties at 33/11 KV substation

Dubba, Nizamabad, he suffered with electrical shock and died

while undergoing treatment. Therefore, contended that the claim

application is liable to be dismissed. In the cross-examination, he

categorically admitted that the deceased died while discharging

his duties and he was being paid an amount of Rs.16,100/- per

month towards salary. He denied that the accident occurred due

to the negligence of opposite parties.

14. It is pertinent to state that admittedly, the deceased was

working as Assistant Lineman under the employment of both the

opposite parties. It is also admitted that he died on 10.03.2009

due to electrocution during the course and out of his employment

under opposite parties. There is also no dispute that the deceased

was 45 years as on the date of the accident. The evidence on the

record clearly establishes the employer and employee relationship 7 MGP,J CMA_430_2013 & CMA_227_2014

between the opposite parties and the deceased. Ex.A-1 copy of

FIR, Ex.A-2 copy of inquest report, Ex.A-3 postmortem report,

Ex.A-4 copy of final report and Ex.A-5 copy of sketch of scene of

offence clearly disclose that the deceased died due to electrocution

while he was discharging his duties as Assistant Lineman. In view

of the said evidence, there is no dispute that the applicants are

entitled for compensation with regard to death of the deceased as

the employee and employer relationship is established.

15. The main dispute in the present appeals is monthly salary of

the deceased, which is essential element to determine the amount

of compensation. Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants

in C.M.A.No.430 of 2013 contended that the deceased was

drawing an amount of Rs.17,000/- per month towards salary by

working as Assistant Lineman under opposite parties. In support

of their contention, the applicants relied upon Ex.A-6 pay

statement of the deceased. On the other hand, the learned

counsel for the opposite parities/appellants in C.M.A.No.227 of

2014 contended that the deceased died on 10.03.2009 and as on

the said date as per the Act, in cases where the monthly income of

the workman exceeds Rs.4,000/-, the same has to be restricted to 8 MGP,J CMA_430_2013 & CMA_227_2014

Rs.4,000/- per month only. However, the Commissioner without

considering the same has taken an amount of Rs.8,000/- per

month towards salary of the deceased based on official Gazette

issued by the Central Government dated 31.05.2011 in

S.O.No.1258 (E) amending the monthly wages of the workman

under the Act, which is on higher side.

16. It is pertinent to state that it is case of the applicants before

the Commissioner that the deceased was being paid an amount of

Rs.17,000/-. On the other hand, the opposite parties filed counter

before the Commissioner contending that the deceased was being

paid an amount of Rs.16,100/- per month towards salary.

Admittedly, the deceased died on 10.03.2009 due to electrocution

while discharging his duties under opposite parties. The evidence

of R.W.1 also clearly shows that the deceased was being paid an

amount of Rs.16,100/- per month towards salary. However, as on

the date of accident, as per the Act, in cases where the monthly

income of the workman exceeds Rs.4,000/-, the same has to be

restricted to Rs.4,000/- per month only. However, official Gazette

was issued by the Central Government on 31.05.2011 in

S.O.No.1258 (E) amending the monthly wages under the Act, as 9 MGP,J CMA_430_2013 & CMA_227_2014

Rs.8,000/-. The said amendment of monthly wages came into

effect on 31.05.2010. Therefore, the same is applicable to the

accidents that occurred after 31.05.2010. In the present case, the

electrocution of the deceased took place on 10.03.2009, which is

prior to the said amendment. Hence, as on the date of the

accident, the wages of the deceased-workman has to be restricted

to Rs.4,000/- per month only, as per the Act. But, the

Commissioner erred in determining the same at Rs.8,000/- per

month.

17. Admittedly, the opposite parties have never pleaded before

the Commissioner that the monthly salary of the deceased has to

be restricted to Rs.4,000/- as per the Act. For the very first time,

they raised the said contention before this Court in C.M.A.No.227

of 2014. The impugned order clearly discloses that both the

opposite parties admitted before the Commissioner that the

deceased was being paid an amount of Rs.16,100/- per month

towards salary. On the other hand, the applicants contended

before the Commissioner that deceased was being paid an amount

of Rs.17,000/- per month. Whereas, the Commissioner without 10 MGP,J CMA_430_2013 & CMA_227_2014

assigning any reasons has simply confined the salary of the

deceased at Rs.8,000/- for determining the compensation.

18. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that when

two interpretations are possible, the interpretation, which is

favourable to the applicants, shall be taken into consideration,

since the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is a beneficial

legislation enacted to protect the interest of workmen. Therefore,

this Court is inclined to consider the monthly salary of the

deceased as Rs.16,100/-, as the Commissioner did not assign

proper reasons while considering the salary of the deceased at

Rs.8,000/- per month and further, as both the opposite parties

have clearly admitted before the Commissioner that the salary of

the deceased was Rs.16,100/-. Furthermore, both the opposite

parties have not raised any contention before the Commissioner to

restrict the salary of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-. Hence, this Court

is inclined to interfere with the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal. Thus, the calculation of the compensation is as follows:

Rs.16,100/- X 50/100 X 169.44 = Rs. 13,63,992/-.

MGP,J CMA_430_2013 & CMA_227_2014

19. In view of the above, the applicants are entitled for

compensation of Rs.13,63,992/-. Further, the Commissioner has

granted an amount of Rs.1,356/- towards stamp fee and Rs.500/-

towards advocate fees. The same are hereby confirmed. After

enhancement, the total amount of compensation comes to

Rs.13,65,848/-.

20. The other contention of learned counsel for the

applicants/appellants in C.M.A.No.430 of 2013 is that the

Commissioner has not awarded any interest on the compensation

amount from the date of claim application. In this regard, it is apt

to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

P.Meenaraj v. P. Adiguruswamy, wherein at para No.10, it is held

as follows:

"10. As regards the date of commencement of the liability of interest, the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be right that even in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), this Court has not laid down the law that the interest would be payable only 30 days after the accident. In our view too, the said statutory period of 30 days does not put a moratorium over the liability of interest. Such interest is related with the amount of compensation receivable by the claimant and there appears no reason for not allowing interest for 30 days from the date of accident. In fact, in the referred decisions too, this Court has allowed interest from the date of accident. That being the position, the questioned part of the order of the High Court calls for interference and 12 MGP,J CMA_430_2013 & CMA_227_2014

the same is modified to the extent that the appellant would be entitled to interest from the date of accident."

21. A perusal of the principle laid down in the above said

decision, it is evident that the applicants are entitled for interest

at 12% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of

accident till the date of deposit.

22. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner has

to be modified. The amount of compensation is enhanced to

Rs.13,65,848/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of

accident till the date of deposit as discussed above.

23. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.227 of 2014

is dismissed and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.430 of 2013 is

allowed and the order dated 15.09.2012 in W.C.No.11 of 2011 F