Jasbir Kaur and Another vs Devinder Kumar and Another

Surinder Singh, J.—Record received. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants on the point of admission. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation-II, Nahan, in Petition No. 17/2 of 11/07, decided on whether reporters of the local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 24th November, 2011 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in short "the Act" for the enhancement of compensation amount and apportionment of the same to the extent of 1/3rd share in favour of Smt. Sonia, widow of the deceased being wrong and illegal.

Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned Counsel for the claimants argued that (i) Smt. Sonia was not widow of the deceased Mithun, driver of respondent No. 1, as the deceased was unmarried, (ii) The learned Commissioner ignored the fact that deceased was a skilled person, he should have been awarded minimum wages of the skilled labour, (iii) interest on the awarded amount was not granted/ allowed from the date of the petition.

At the very set I would like to say that all the above points raised are contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record to which I shall take up one by one, but before that I would like to say that u/s 30 of the Act, the appeal lies only on a substantial question of law and not otherwise because the right to appeal is neither a natural nor an inherent right attached to the litigation. Being a substantive statutory right, it has to be regulated in accordance with the law in force and no Court has power to order or to enlarge those grounds. Thus, the appeal cannot be decided on equitable grounds.

In para 1 of the application, the appellants have categorically mentioned that deceased was married and his wife Sonia was living with him. But when appellant Jasbir Kaur examined herself as PW-1, she had denied this fact which is contrary to her pleadings, which cannot be looked into. In para-40 of the judgment the learned Commissioner took note of this fact and rightly came to the conclusion that Smt. Sonia was also entitled for the share in compensation. At no point of time neither the petitioner/appellants sought amendment in petition nor made her a party even in this appeal, therefore, against the above factual admitted position, the petitioner/appellants have no ground or cogent explanation to take U-turn. Therefore, there is no illegality in holding Sonia as wife of the deceased to share the compensation.

Further, the deceased was admittedly a driver. The claim in the petition is that he was engaged by respondent No. 1 on a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000. PW-1 appellant Jasbir Kaur is the mother of the deceased. She stated his monthly salary @ Rs. 4,000 plus Rs. 150 for every outside trip. Respondent No. 1 denied this fact in reply as well as RW-1 when examined in the Court. Rather in his statement the respondent categorically stated about his monthly salary @ Rs. 2,000. The learned Commissioner took note of this conflicting stand and relied upon the statement of owner-respondent to take Rs. 2,000 per month as his salary. The appellants neither before the Commissioner nor before this Court produced any cogent evidence or notification qua the minimum wages issued by the State Government prevalent at relevant time to take another view. Therefore, this argument also fails.

Lastly, the claim is for interest, as it was not allegedly awarded from the date of petition. The date of accident is 30th July, 2007. The petition was filed on 4th September, 2007 and decided on 24th November, 2011. Vide para No. 35 in column No. 5, the interest @ 12% per annum stands awarded for this period which comes to Rs. 1,13,358.21 and vide relief clause in para 43 the same rate of future interest stands awarded till the final realization of amount. Therefore, the contention is wrong, hence rejected. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, I do not find it a case of any question of law, much less the substantial one. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed in limine.