Tripura High Court
Smt. Phul Kumari Koloi @ Phui Kanya vs The State Of Tripura on 18 December, 2021
Page 1
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MFA (EC) 07/2019
1. Smt. Phul Kumari Koloi @ Phui Kanya
wife of late Bir Bahu Kaloi, resident of Palkubari, Palku, Palku cherra,
Sub-division- Amarpur. P.O. Palku, P.S. Taidu, District- Gomati Tripura
2. Sri Arainya Kaloi
son of late Bir Bahu Kaloi, resident of Palkubari, Palku, Palku cherra,
Sub-division- Amarpur. P.O. Palku, P.S. Taidu, District- Gomati Tripura
3. Sri Rajesh Kaloi
wife of late Bir Bahu Kaloi, resident of Palkubari, Palku, Palku cherra,
Sub-division- Amarpur. P.O. Palku, P.S. Taidu, District- Gomati Tripura
4. Smt. Changmari Kaloi
daughter of late Bir Bahu Kaloi, resident of Palkubari, Palku, Palku cherra,
Sub-division- Amarpur. P.O. Palku, P.S. Taidu, District- Gomati Tripura
5. Sri Karnya Kaloi
son of late Bir Bahu Kaloi, resident of Palkubari, Palku, Palku cherra,
Sub-division- Amarpur. P.O. Palku, P.S. Taidu, District- Gomati Tripura
6. Smt. Purna Laxmi Kaloi
wife of late Rajendra Kaloi, resident of Palkubari, Palku, Palku cherra,
Sub-division- Amarpur. P.O. Palku, P.S. Taidu, District- Gomati Tripura
(Appellants no. 2 to 5 being minor are represented by appellant no. 1)
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Tripura
represented by the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Power,
Government of Tripura, Agartala
2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner,
Department of Power, Government of Tripura, Agartala
3. The Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Bidyut Bhavan, Bodhjung Chowmuhani, P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura
4. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, Bidyut Bhavan, Bodhjung
Chowmuhani, P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura
5. The Senior Manager,
Electrical Sub Division, Ompi, Gomati District
Page 2
6. Sri Dipak kumar Saha,
Care of Tripura Electrical House, near old bus stand, Udaipur, P.S. R.K. Pur,
Gomati, Tripura
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Deb, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Debgupta, Advocate
Date of hearing & delivery
of Judgment & Order : 18.12.2021
Whether fit for reporting : No
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Judgment & Order (ORAL)
18/12/2021
Heard Mr. D. Deb, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioners. Also
heard Ms. S. Debgupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent- Tripura
State Electricity Corporation Limited (for short, TSECL), and Mr. N.
Majumder, learned counsel for respondent-State and Mr. B. Pal, learned
counsel for respondent no. 6.
2. This is an appeal filed by the claimant-appellants under Section 30 of
the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and award
dated 01.05.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees
Compensation, Gomati, Tripura in T.S. (EC) 04 of 2015 granting
inadequate compensation due to death of Bir Bahu Kaloi, husband of
claimant-appellant no. 1 in course of his employment as an electrician under
respondent no. 6, Dilip kumar Saha, Contractor, who was working under a
contract with Tripura Electrical House, Udaipur.
3. Briefly stated, on 29.01.2008 when Bir Bahu Kaloi was working with
electrical staffs and his employer, respondent no. 6 herein, agreement works
contractor, Tripura Electrical House, Udaipur under the supervision and
control of Senior Manager, Electrical Sub Division, Ompi and during the
course of employment he got electrocuted. He was taken to hospital, but,
ultimately succumbed to his injuries.
Page 3
4. The application claiming compensation was filed. TSECL was made
as one of the defendants. The Contractor also was made as one of the
defendants. The Contractor, OP no. 6, filed written statement, but, TSECL
could not file any written statement. Ultimately, learned Commissioner had
framed the following issues:-
"(i) Was Bir Bahu Kaloi an employee under the O.P. No. 6 Dipak
Kumar Saha on 29.01.2008 as defined under the Employees'
Compensation Act, 1923?
(ii) Was Bir Bahu Kaloi in course of his employment electrocuted on
29.01.2008 and consequently died due to said injuries?
(iii) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation and if so, to what
amount and who is/are to pay the same?
(iv) To what other relief/reliefs are the parties entitled?"
5. Evidences were led by the parties. TSECL did not adduce any
evidence to dispute the claims of the claimants, the appellants herein.
Thereafter, on discussion of the evidences let in by the parties as well as the
arguments being heard, learned Commissioner had quantified the
compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,42,300/- alongwith interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 21.07.2015 till
payment i.e. realization of the same. The appellants were not satisfied with
the said quantification of the awarded amount. Hence, this appeal before this
court.
6. I have perused the records. I find no error in quantifying the awarded
amount by the learned Commissioner and granting of compensation for an
amount of Rs. 5,42,300/- (rupees five lakh forty two thousand three
hundred) only. Furthermore, the liability has been rightly fixed against
TSECL. However, learned Commissioner has committed an error in
awarding interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the application.
7. In a recent decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.
9046 of 2019 arising out of SLP(C) 18110 of 2019 [titled as K Sivaraman
Page 4
and others vs. P. Sathishkumar and another] at para 36 held that the claimant
is entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident.
8. In view of this, I direct respondent-TSECL to pay interest @ 12% per
annum on the principal amount of Rs. 5,42,300/-. However, considering the
peculiar circumstance of the case, I am not inclined to grant interest in this
particular case from the date of accident for the reason that the deceased died
on 29.01.2008 out of the said accident, but, the claimant have filed the
application for compensation with a petition for condonation of delay in the
year 2015.
9. In my opinion, the respondent-TSECL should not be burdened to pay
interest for the period w.e.f. 2008 upto the date of filing the application in
the year 2015 since it was the obligation of the claimant to file the suit
within two years from the date of the accident, but, they were negligent in
filing the application within the statutory period of two years. Hence, the
interest has to be paid @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the
application in the context of the case. Accordingly, the quantification of
award to the tune of Rs. 5,42,300/- as returned by learned Commissioner,
Employees' Compensation, has not been interfered with. However, granting
of rate of interest @ 6% per annum is interfered with and the TSECL is
directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim application by the claimants-appellants.
10. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed to the extent as
indicated above. Pending application(s), if any, is also disposed of.
JUDGE
Saikat
