Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State & Others vs Ravi Bhardwaj & Others on 30 May, 2013
Author: K.Kannan
Bench: K.Kannan
RSA No.29 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.29 of 2013
Date of decision: 30.05.2013
Punjab State & others .... Appellants
Versus
Ravi Bhardwaj & others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN
Present: Mr. Vishal Garg, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate
for the respondents.
*****
K.Kannan, J.(Oral)
The appeal is by the State seeking to assail the judgment of the Courts below awarding compensation in a civil suit for recovery of damages for death caused to a government employee during the course of employment. The deceased was a junior engineer in PWD (B&R) and when he was engaged in a work of construction of a bridge, which was undertaken by the government, he had sustained serious/ fatal injuries and succumbed to the same on 11.04.1996, that gave rise to suit. The suit was instituted by the wife, minor son and the parents claiming compensation of Rs.10 lacs for the death caused to the government employee.
Defence inter alia was that the remedy does not lie in the civil suit and that only an action before the WC Commissioner under Workmen Compensation. The Court rejected the contention and found that by taking note of the income, and making deduction from the personal expenses and applied a multiplier suitable to the age of the deceased the returned a corpus which would have provided income RSA No.29 of 2013 -2- equivalent to the income earning. In fact Court was following formula propounded in Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009(6) SCC 121. The total compensation awarded was 10,20,000/- while the suit was decreed for Rs.10 lacs. The decision was affirmed in the appeal.
In the second appeal, learned counsel for the State formulates a proposition that the family of the deceased were paid pension and all terminal benefits, besides also being beneficiaries under an insurance scheme. According to him, the decree passed without giving due provision for the amounts paid to the dependents was not justified. The respondents are in appeal.
Notice of motion was issued without framing any substantial question of law. I do not find any merit to entertain the appeal. The liability to pay compensation for death arising out of accident during the course of employment by an employee in the course of his duty is well established in not merely labour jurisprudence but also relating to employment of persons of managerial or supervisor cadre. It was urged in suit that there had been negligence on the part of State functionaries in the design and execution of the public work of laying the bridge. PW-6, who was an SDM had conducted in inquiry and gave an inquiry report pointing out to an issue of negligence and the actual reason as to why the accident took place. Where negligence was established, the liability of the State could hardly be in doubt. The only issue is whether quantification of the damage was appropriate. The Court has adopted a multiplier theory as enunciated in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The amounts of terminal benefits, which were paid by the State or the insurance amount, which had accrued cannot be deducted RSA No.29 of 2013 -3- in any way since the terminal benefits are not a bounty paid by the State to the members of the deceased family but it was a deferred wage payable to the estate. The unit link insurance scheme that provided for an amount is for the premium paid and it has nothing to do with the actual death that resulted through the negligent act attributed to the defendant.
The compensation assessed and the decree passed by the Courts below are, therefore, affirmed as conforming to law and evidence.
There is no substantial question of law , which is involved in the case and the points of law that are involved are already settled through known principles. I find no scope of interference and do not feel to concern any substantial question of law to see any merit in admitting this appeal.
The appeal stands dismissed.
30.05.2013 (K.Kannan) sonia Judge