Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khuma And Ors vs Shyam Lal And Ors on 24 October, 2019
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1841/2007
Khuma And Ors.
----Appellant
Versus
Shyam Lal And Ors.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1740/2006
United India Insurance Co.ltd.chittorgar
----Appellant
Versus
Khuma And Ors.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hari Singh for
Mr. Manish Pitaliay
For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Goswami
Mr. P Nayak
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 24/10/2019 In Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1841/2007
1. Appellants / claimants have preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming the following relief :-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed with cost and the judgment & award dated 13.06.2006, passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Chittorgarh, in case No. WCC 24/2004 may kindly be modified and compensation may kindly be enhanced up to as claimed by the appellants in their claim petition alongwith interest of 12% p.a. from the date of accident and penalty of 50% of awarded compensation may kindly be awarded."(Downloaded on 30/10/2019 at 08:31:29 PM)
(2 of 4)
2. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants submitted that the penalty awarded is too less, and thus, the same ought to be increased.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants also submitted that the interest awarded by the learned authority below was 6% per annum and the same ought to be 12% per annum.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants / claimants further submitted that there was independent witness substantiating the claim of Rs.3,000/- monthly wages, and thus, computation of the award, while taking the wage of the deceased to be Rs.1,920/- is unlawful.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the employer himself has controverted the employment of the deceased, and thus, the wages of the deceased taken as per minimum wages prevailing at the relevant time could have been the only option with the learned authority below.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the penalty and interest awarded by the learned authority below is justified.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the once the employer himself has not been examined and no certificate or definite proof has been furnished about the income, then the evidence of the independent witness would not be of any significance. The monthly wage of the deceased of Rs.1,920/- per month, which is the minimum wage prevailing is justified criteria. (Downloaded on 30/10/2019 at 08:31:29 PM)
(3 of 4) The penalty imposed by the learned authority below is also justified.
8. However, so far as interest awarded @ 6% per annum, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the same to 12% per annum from the date of accident.
9. Thus, in view of the above, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the respondents / non-claimants to pay the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident. In Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1740/2006
1. This misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company, claiming the following reliefs:
"That impugned judgment and award dated 13.6.2006 passed by learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Chittorgarh in claim case NO. WCC 24/2004 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
Any other relief, which your Honour may deem just and proper, may also kindly be granted in favour of the appellant."
2. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi Vs. Chhatra Devi, reported in JT 2005(6) SC 167 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that without formulating substantial question of law appeal cannot be sustained.
3. Counsel for the respondent has further shown judgment of Jaipur Bench of this Court in M/s. Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer Vs. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi widow of Mool Chand & Anr., reported in 1985(1) WLN 455 wherein this Court while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act has laid down law that unless there was a question of public importance and there was no (Downloaded on 30/10/2019 at 08:31:29 PM) (4 of 4) final interpretation available while the substantial question of law was arising, the appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be entertained. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows :-
"8. Moreover, under S. 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act only substantial questions of law can be agitated. In the present case, I am convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved.
9. The question of public importance and question on which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. Even if this definition is further extended, it will have to bear in mind that there is vast difference between the question of law and substantial question of law. It is only when the question of law is not well settled and it is of importance, it would become a substantial questions of law. The employer should not indiscriminately file appeals against poor workman's dependents. No notice is given before Fatal Accidents to the victim and how can want of notice to employer be fatal accident again, depriving compensation to unfortunate victims or dependents in cases of the Compensation Act."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any substantial question of law in this appeal.
5. Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, no interference is called for in the present misc. appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 135-136-Sudheer/-
(Downloaded on 30/10/2019 at 08:31:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)