Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway and Others vs Urmila Devi

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

C.M. No. 22589-CII of 2010:

Application is allowed as prayed for.

F.A.O. No. 3012 of 2010 (O&M):

This appeal is directed against order of the Commissioner under Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, Ambala (for short ''the Commissioner'') by which he has allowed interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the award amount of Rs. 1,92,140 from 17.1.1999 to 16.1.2006, which comes to Rs. 1,21,048, to be paid to the applicant (respondent herein) within a period of 30 days from the date of that order, failing which the applicant/respondent is held entitled to further recover interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of that order up to the date of payment. In brief, one Bhikhari Yadav, who was working as gangman with appellants/Railways, died on 16.12.1998 on account of an accident during the course of his employment. After his death, one Urmila Devi along with her minor son Umesh Kumar, resident of Luxmi Flour Mills, Gurudwara Road, Rajpura Town, District Patiala (Punjab) [hereinafter referred to as ''Urmila of Punjab''] filed a civil suit at Ambala in order to claim service benefits of deceased Bhikhari Yadav, in which besides impleading the Railways she impleaded Urmila Devi, wife of not known, resident of village Kala Balwa, Tehsil Bhinalia, District Purnia (Bihar) [hereinafter referred to as ''Urmila of Bihar''] and four others. In the said suit, she had also prayed for injunction that during the pendency of the suit the service benefits of Bhikhari Yadav may not be given to the defendants. On 16.11.1999, status quo was granted by the trial court which was vacated on 20.2.2004. Thereafter, Urmila of Punjab filed a miscellaneous appeal on 12.3.2004 in which restraint order was passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala. However, the said miscellaneous appeal was dismissed on 15.5.2006. In the meantime, Urmila of Punjab also filed an application under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ''the Act'') before the Commissioner for claiming compensation on account of the death of Bhikhari Yadav (deceased) during the course of his employment. In that case, the Commissioner awarded the compensation on account of the death of Bhikhari Yadav (deceased) to the tune of Rs. 1,92,140. The said amount was deposited by the appellants/Railways with the Commissioner on 17.1.2006. It is also submitted that Urmila of Punjab made the following statement on oath before the Commissioner on 21.3.2007:

Statement of Urmila Devi, wife of Bhikhari Yadav, aged 36 years, resident of Rajpura, Tehsil Patiala (Punjab) on SA.

Stated that I do not want to further prosecute my application dated 13.9.2005. I will have no objection if the amount of compensation is given to the real heirs of Bhikhari Yadav. I take back my application. There is no stay on the above amount.

RO&AC Sd/- Urmila Devi

RO&AC Thumb Marked Rti of Urmila Devi

Sd/- CWC

Thereafter, the amount of compensation was disbursed by the Commissioner to Urmila from Bihar. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record, by way of C.M. No. 22589-CII of 2010, certain documents which include the statement of Urmila of Bihar and order of the Commissioner, which read as under:

Statement of Urmila, widow of Bhikhari Yadav, aged 45 years, resident of Kala Balwa, P.O. Kala Balwa, District Purnia on S.A.

Stated that the deceased was my husband. I was wholly dependent on his income. Besides me he has no heirs and the money the respondents have deposited in this court be given to me. My photo is Exh. A1 and affidavit is Exh. A2. If any other heir lays claim to this money, then I will again deposit this money in this court. At this time there is no stay from the civil court.

Sd/- CWC

ORDER

On the above statement of the petitioner and on the strength of the documents filed I pass the order for paying Rs. 1,92,140 to the petitioner. Receipt may be taken from the petitioner and the case is consigned to the office.

Urmila, widow of Bhikhari

Rs. 1,00,000 A/c cheque

Rs. 92,140 cash

Rs. 1,92,140

Sd/- CWC

After the aforesaid litigation was over, Urmila from Bihar filed another Claim Petition No. 28/WC/2007 against the Railways for the purpose of claiming interest on the amount of compensation from the date it fell due. The said application was contested by the appellants, in which only two issues were framed, namely, (i) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation from the respondents? If yes, then how much? OPP; and, (ii) Relief. After considering the evidence available on record, learned Commissioner awarded interest of an amount of Rs. 1,21,048 w.e.f. 17.1.1999 to 16.1.2006, and ordered that in case the amount of interest is not paid within 30 days from the date of that order, the applicant/respondent would get interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of that order up to the date of payment. This order has been challenged by the appellants before this court on the ground that as per section 10 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (sic Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923) the limitation to file claim petition is two years, but the same has been filed beyond the period of limitation. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the learned Commissioner has committed a patent error of law in allowing the time-barred claim.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record with his able assistance.

This is a case of its own kind where there is a comedy of errors. There were two Urmila(s) who were claiming service benefits of Bhikhari Yadav (deceased) who was working as a gangman with the appellants/Railways. At last, as it always happens, the truth had prevailed and the other Urmila of Punjab, who was not entitled to compensation, bowed out and stated before the Commissioner that she would not mind if the compensation and other service benefits flowing from the unnatural death of Bhikhari Yadav are paid to the real heirs. The Commissioner, after being satisfied on the basis of the documents placed before him, found Urmila from Bihar to be real heir of Bhikhari Yadav and awarded/disbursed the amount of compensation to her. In this process, amount of compensation, which was to be deposited by appellants/Railways with the Commissioner within 30 days from the date of death of the deceased as per provision of section 4-A of the Act, also earned interest because it is obvious that money grows on money and the interest is integral part of the principal amount. The claim petition then filed by Urmila of Bihar is only for the purpose of claiming interest on amount and is not a petition for the purpose of claiming compensation, therefore, to my mind, it is not barred by limitation as it does not fall within the ambit of section 10 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (sic Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923). Moreover, the plea of limitation cannot be raised for the first time before this court in appeal as the plea of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law. The appellants/Railways have not pleaded this plea of limitation before the Commissioner, therefore, it could not be denied by the respondent and as such there was no issue and there was no occasion to lead evidence in that behalf. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.