Telangana High Court

Smt. V.V.V. Lakshmi And 2 Others vs The Union Of India And 3 Others on 26 March, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

       CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.830 OF 2015


JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy

Commissioner of Labour, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad in

W.C.No.2 of 2014, dated 16.07.2015, the applicants have preferred

the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking for enhancement of

compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be

referred as per their array before the learned Commissioner.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants, who are

the wife and children of the deceased-A.V.Surya Prakash, filed a

claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.21,18,000/- along with

interest @ 24% per annum against all the opposite parties. As per

the applicants, the deceased was working as Assistant Station

Master in South Central Railway, Vikarabad. On 26.12.2009,

when the deceased was proceeding from his office to residence

situated beside railway track i.e., at Road No.1, Top line, Vikarabad

Railway Station, the Train No.7014 Hyderabad-Osmanabad

entered the platform on Line No.1(Common loop No.1) and hit the

deceased. As a result, the deceased was dragged, run over and 2 MGP,J CMA_830_2015

died on the spot. P.S.,R.P.S. Vikarabad, registered a case in Crime

No.140 of 2009, under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and took up

investigation. It is further contended by the applicants that since

the deceased died during the course and out of employment,

therefore, the appellants are entitled for compensation from the

opposite party Nos.1 to 4.

4. Opposite party Nos.1 to 4 filed a common counter and

denied all the averments made in the claim application including,

occurrence of accident. They also denied that the accident took

place during the course and out of employment and that the

applicants are facing financial difficulties on the death of the

deceased. They also stated that as per the records, the deceased

has performed his duty from 19.00 hours to 24.00 hours on

25.12.2009 and after signing off duty at 00.00 hours and while

returning from duty from 'B' cabin to his residence, he was run

over by a train No.7014 Hyderabad-Osmanabad Express at 00.10

hours at Vikarabad Station and died. Therefore, the accident has

not occurred during the course and out of employment and that

the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant. They further

contended that the first applicant, who is wife of the deceased was

paid settlement dues of Rs.5,01,612/-, under provident fund

Rs.3,12,579 and family pension of Rs.16,245/- per month 3 MGP,J CMA_830_2015

(including 100% DA) and she was appointed as Junior Clerk on

compassionate grounds in Personnel Branch and was drawing

Rs.20,658/-. Hence, the applicants had not suffered any monitory

loss and they have approached the Commissioner with unclean

hands by suppressing the material facts and filed the application

with a malafide intention with an intention to extract the public

money without having any right and hence, prayed to dismiss the

claim application with costs.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are

framed:-

(i) Whether the deceased died in the accident that occurred on 26.12.2009 during the course and out of his employment under the employment of the opposite parties?

(ii) If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the applicants?

(iii) What is the amount of compensation entitled by the applicants?

6. Before the Commissioner, the applicant No.1 was examined

as AW1 on behalf of all the applicants and got marked Exs.A1 to

A11.

7. On behalf of respondents, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to

B11 are marked.

4 MGP,J CMA_830_2015

8. After considering the entire evidence and documents

adduced on both sides, the learned Commissioner had awarded an

amount of Rs.3,47,230/- towards compensation along with interest

@ 12% per annum . Dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal

by the applicants.

9. Heard the submissions made by both parties who appeared

through virtual mode.

10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellants is that though the applicants have proved their case by

adducing cogent and convincing evidence, however, the learned

Commissioner had awarded meagre amount towards compensation

and prayed to enhance the same.

11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent-

Railways argued that the learned Commissioner, after considering

all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which

interference of this Court is unwarranted.

12. Now, the point that emerges for determination is,

Whether the order of the learned Commissioner requires

interference of this Court?

5 MGP,J CMA_830_2015

POINT:-

13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents

available on both sides. The wife of the deceased was examined as

AW1. She reiterated the contents of the claim application and

deposed about the manner of accident. Apart from oral

evidence, AW1 has relied upon the documents marked under

Exs.A1 to A11. Ex.A1 is the intimation report given by the Office of

South Central Railway regarding the particulars of the deceased.

Ex.A2-FIR shows that based on the information received from

Deputy Station Superintendent, Vikarabad, the SHO, Vikarabad

Railway Police registered a case in Crime No.104 of 2009 under

Section 174 Cr.P.C. and took up investigation and laid final report

under Ex.A3. Ex.A4 is the Inquest Panchanama wherein Deputy

Station Superintendents, Railways, Vikarabad were acted as panch

witnesses 1 & 2 and opined that the deceased as ASM in B-cabin

and he was on duty from 19 hours to 24 hours and after relieving

from duty, while going home through Plat form No.1, the Train

No.7014-UP Osmanabad Express has dashed the deceased, due to

which, his two legs were got separated and sustained severe

bleeding injuries and died on the spot. Ex.A5 is the Post Mortem

Examination report which discloses that the cause of death is due

to Polytrauma causing shock and death. Ex.A6 is the report of

Death. Ex.A7 is the Death certificate. Ex.A8 is the PF settlement 6 MGP,J CMA_830_2015

letter. Ex.A9 is the service Certificate of the deceased. Ex.A10 is

the rejection order of the South Central Railway denying the

payment of compensation. Ex.A11 is the house hold card.

14. On behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 to 4, RW1 was

examined . He filed affidavit in support of his contentions and got

marked Exs.B1 to B11 on his behalf. Ex.B1 is the Appointment

letter issued to Smt.V.V.V.Lakshmi, wife of the deceased,

appointing her on compassionate grounds for the post of Junior

clerk-cum-Typist. Ex.B2 is the pay slip of Smt.VVV Lakishmi for

the month of April 2014. Ex.B3 is the atttested copy of intimation

for settlement particulars. Ex.B4 is the Provident Fund settlement

intimation letter. Ex.B5 is the attested copy of pension payment

order. Ex.B6 is the service certificate. Ex.B7 is the copy of G.A6

form. Ex.B8 is the attested copy of three men committee Recast

Enquiry Report. Ex.B9 is the attested copy of Three men

committee report dated 14.05.2011. Ex.B10 attested copy of

witness of Locopilot of Train No.17014, UP Osmanabad express

train. Ex.B11 is the attested copy of serial circular No.102/1999

regarding claim for payment of compensation under workmen

compensation act.

15. It is pertinent to state that there is no dispute regarding the

accident and death of the deceased. The only dispute that arose is 7 MGP,J CMA_830_2015

with regard to payment of compensation. Learned counsel for the

appellants contended that the deceased as a workman, used to

draw salary of Rs.25,000/-, but they failed to produce any

documentary proof to that effect. Hence, the learned

Commissioner by considering the age of the deceased, fixed

minimum wages as per Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation

Act, 1923 and by applying relevant factor, had awarded reasonable

compensation of Rs.3,47,230/-.

16. It is the contention of the appellants/claimants that the

learned Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the husband

and father of the appellants died at the age of 45 years and his last

drawn salary was Rs.25,000/- but the learned Commissioner had

fixed the salary of the deceased @ 4,000/- per month. The

Explanation II of Section 4 of the Act, prescribes the maximum

wage limit at Rs.4000/- p.m. for the purpose of computing

compensation for death and permanent disablement but the

explanation was omitted and a new sub-section (IB) has been

added after Sub-section IA of sec.4 whereby the maximum wage

limit has been revised to Rs.8000/-p.m. It is pertinent to mention

that the Central Government quantified the monthly wages as

Rs.8,000/- through Notification dated 31.05.2010 and Rs.15,000/-

vide Notification dated 03.01.2020 for the purpose of computing 8 MGP,J CMA_830_2015

compensation under Section 4(1) of the Employees' Compensation

Act, 1923. However, in K. Sivaraman and others v. P.Sathish

Kumar and others 1 the Honourable Supreme Court observed as

under:

"31. The judgment in Rathi Menon and Rina Devi were both rendered by a Bench of two judges of this Court. In Rina Devi, this Court resolved the apparent conflict between Rathi Menon and Kalandi by taking into account the judgment in Rathi Menon as well as the change in the position of law following the judgment. The position of law under the 1989 Act has thus been brought closer to the judgment of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh which held that the date relevant for the determination of compensation would be the date of the accident. The judgment in Rina Devi was recently followed by this Court in Union of India v Radha Yadav16.

32. It is pertinent to note that no similar position of law for the determination of the higher amount of compensation payable was adopted under the 1923 Act by this Court in Pratap Narain Singh and Valsala. This Court, being a Bench of two judges, is (2019) 3 SCC 410 bound by the categorical position of law laid down in Pratap Narain Singh and Valsala, both being judgments rendered by larger Benches of this Court. Consequently, we hold that the relevant date for the determination of compensation payable is the date of the accident and the benefit of Act 45 of 2009 does not apply to accidents that took place prior to its coming into force.

33. In the present case, the accident occurred on 31 January 2008 i.e. prior to the coming into force of Act 45 of 2009. Consequently, the High Court erred in extending the benefit of Act 45 of 2009 which deleted Explanation II to Section 4 to the present case. The High Court was required to determine the

(2020) 4 SCC 594

9 MGP,J CMA_830_2015

compensation payable on the date of the accident on which date, the deemed cap of Rs 4000 as monthly wages was applicable."

17. In view of the principle laid down in the above said citation,

it is amply clear that the benefit of an amendment enhancing the

amount of compensation shall not apply to accidents that take

place prior to its coming into force.

18. It is also pertinent to mention that as per Ex.A9-Service

Certificate issued by Divisional Railway Manager, the Basic Pay

(PBP + GP) of the deceased is shown as Rs.17,100/- which do not

disclose the net monthly income of the deceased which arrives after

necessary deductions. As per Household card under Ex.A11, the

annual income of the deceased is shown as Rs.1,40,000/- which

comes to Rs.11,667/- per month. Hence, there is a contradiction

in the income of the deceased which cannot be taken into

consideration.

19. Even otherwise, the contention of the appellants/claimants

before this Court is certainly based on question of fact. The

Honourable Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road

Transport Corporation v. Sujatha 2 held as under:

"9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the

2 (2019) 11 SCC 514 10 MGP,J CMA_830_2015

course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue(s) his employer to claim compensation under the Act.

10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.

11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve substantial questions of law.

12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case."

11 MGP,J CMA_830_2015

20. Even in Golla Rajanna etc., v. The Divisional Manager and

another etc., 3 the Honourable Supreme Court held that under the

scheme of Workmen Compensation Act, the Workmen's

Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. In view

of the principle laid down in the above said decisions, since the

contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants are

based on questions of fact, it is evident that scope of appeal under

Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act is very limited,

thereby the ambit of interfering with the order passed by the

learned Commissioner is also limited until and unless the order

passed by the learned Commissioner is perverse or when there is