Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ram Phal

1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 20th January, 2012 passed in a case tilted Shri Ram Phal Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, by virtue of which the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation has directed the payment of compensation of Rs. 83,145/- along with interest @6% to the employee from the date of the accident till the actual payment is made.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident had taken place on 29th April, 1995 while the 2013:DHC:4951 applicant was driving a bus bearing no. DL-IP-9699, near Baraut, Bahadurgarh. It has been stated that the petition for claiming of compensation was filed almost after a decade in the year 2005, and therefore the only point on the basis of which the present appeal is being contested is with regard to the payment of interest for the period for which the respondent did not invoke the jurisdiction of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner for getting the compensation. It is accordingly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent ought not to be given interest for a period of ten years when he himself did not approach the statutory authorities for the payment of compensation.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that according to Section 4 (A) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the liability of the employer to pay compensation arises within thirty days from the date of the accident. It is further contended that in the instant case the appellant Corporation which was under an obligation ought to have deposited the amount of compensation with the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation, even if the respondent did not approach the Commissioner for his requisite relief. The learned counsel contended since the appellant had failed to do so they were in breach of their statutory duties under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923, and this act on their part cannot be condoned. In addition to this, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent/applicant had filed a petition to claim compensation after expiry of ten years but delay in filing the petition was condoned by the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation despite opposition to the same by the appellant and once the said delay has been condoned, the applicant is relegated back to the date of accident for the purpose of entitling him payment of compensation in terms of the statutory provision after expiry of thirty days. It is stated that on the frivolous plea the respondent cannot be denied the benefit of interest. In order to justify the claim of interest, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Shrinivas Sabata & Anr., AIR 1976 SC

222.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that even if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is considered, the only plea which arises between the amounts with regard to the payment of interest comes to Rs. 13,300/- for a period of ten years @6%. It is urged this quantum is so meagre that it ought not to be interfered keeping in view the larger objective of the legislation.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the counsel for the parties.

6. I feel there is a considerable merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant being a Corporation and a Government body was under the statutory obligation to have deposited the amount with the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation even if the claim by the respondent was not filed at that stage. Since it failed to discharge its statutory duties it could not take a plea of belated filing of the claim by the victim only to deprive him all the benefit as available to him under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

7. In the instant case there is no dispute to the fact that the respondent workman who was employed as a driver had suffered 30% disability as a consequence of an accident, but in fact it has been held that the said disability tantamount to 100% disability as he has become unfit to drive vehicle.

8. Keeping in view these facts, I feel that it would be unfair to reduce the component of interest which has been ordered to be paid to the respondent. More so when the objective of the legislation is ameliorative in nature.

9. No other substantial question of law arises from the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. V.K. SHALI, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 mg