Tripura High Court
Present vs For The on 1 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 696 OF 2022
Smt. Gita Rani Saha (Roy) Vrs. Smt. Babita Kapali (Biswas) & 5 Ors.
Present:
For the petitioner (s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. K. Nath, Advocate.
For the respondent (s) : Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
01.11.2022
Order
Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
Subhas Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1
and 2.
Fact of the case is that the respondent nos. 1 to 5 being
successors had filed a claim application under Section 22, 4, 4A read with
Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act claiming compensation
due to the death of the deceased, namely, Sujit Biswas. The Commissioner
issued notice to the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company.
The matter was examined by the Commissioner, evidences were recorded
and accordingly judgment was passed by the Commissioner. The liability
to pay compensation was fastened with the insurance company. However,
in the impugned judgment the learned Commissioner has directed the
owner of the vehicle i.e. the petitioner herein to pay interest @ 12% per
annum as penalty from the date of filing of the claim application.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner by way of filing the instant
writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has challenged
the order of penalty imposed upon her.
I have perused the judgment passed by the learned
Commissioner, particularly Para no.17, which is reproduced here-in-
below:-
"17. On 14.09.2021 O.P. no.1 Smti. Gita Rani Saha (Roy)
was examined herself as OPW 1 and exhibited two documents namely,
photocopy of certificate of registration of the vehicle bearing no.AS-
01-DD-5057 along with photocopy of insurance certificate as Exbt.A
and Exbt.B respectively on comparison with the originals and on that
date she was directed to appear before this Commission on the next
date to face cross examination by the O.P. no.2. But thereafter on six
other dates she did not turn up before this Commission to face cross
examination by the O.P. no.2. As the O.P. no.1 did not turn up before
this Commission violating the Commission's order, she should also be
made accountable to pay a portion of the award and accordingly, the
O.P. no.1 Smti. Gita Rani Saha (Roy), W/O. Sri Gopal Chandra Roy,
resident of Barjala near TRTC of Barjala, Agartala, P.S. West
Agartala, District West Tripura, owner of the vehicle bearing
registration No. AS-01-DD5057, is directed to pay interest @12% per
annum on the awarded amount of compensation w.e.f. 15.04.2016 i.e.
one month after the date of incident till realization."
On bare perusal of the above observation made by learned
Commissioner, it appears on the face of the record that the direction
awarding penalty upon the petitioner is erroneous and suffers from patent
illegality. That apart, there is no provision under the Employee's
Compensation Act to impose such penalty upon a witness for the reasons
assigned in the above paragraph. If the owner of the vehicle failed to
appear before the court to face cross examination, then, there were other
recourses under the law for her appearance which could be followed by the
learned Commissioner or even could impose cost, but awarding penalty in
such a manner is not permitted by law.
In view of above, this court is compelled to exercise its
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, its
power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
and to set aside the impugned order awarding penalty upon the petitioner.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. It is the insurer i.e. the
National Insurance Company Ltd., respondent no.1, shall bear the statutory
interest in terms of provision laid under the Employee's Compensation Act.
With the above perspective, the instant writ petition stands
allowed and disposed.
JUDGE
sanjay
