AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.C. Mankad, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated March 29,1985, passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as ''the Commissioner'') by which the Respondents original Applicants were awarded compensation of Rs. 23,100/- and penalty of Rs. 11,550/- together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum for the death of Abuhasan Sida (''deceased'' for short) husband of Respondent No. 1 and father of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
The learned Commissioner had found that the deceased was a workman of the Appellant original opponent at the time when he met with the accident in the month of April, 1983. He has further found that death of the deceased was caused out of and in the course of employment with the opponent. It appears that the deceased received injury while he was working in the factory of the Appellant and he died on April 14, 1983, on account of tetanus which developed on account of the injury received by him in the factory. The learned Commissioner further found that salary or wages which the deceased received at the time of the accident was Rs. 650/- per month. Having regard to this salary, the learned Commissioner assessed compensation payable to the Respondents at Rs. 23,100/-. He also awarded penalty of Rs. 11,550/- to the Respondents as Appellant failed to deposit the amount payable to the Respondents within the stipulated time even after notice served on him. It appears that no amount was deposited by the Appellant even during the pendency of the application made by the Respondents before the learned Commissioner. It was in these circumstances that the learned Commissioner awarded penalty of Rs. 11,550/- and directed the Appellant to pay compensation together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, to the Respondents. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Commissioner, the Appellant has preferred this appeal.
No question of law much less a substantial question of law is raised by the Appellant in-this appeal. Three contentions are raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, namely, (i) that the learned Commissioner has erred in holding that the deceased was in the employment of the Appellant when he received the injury in the month of April, 1983; (ii) that the learned Commissioner has erred in holding that the salary or wages of the deceased was Rs. 650/- per month; and (iii) that there is no justification to award penalty of Rs. 11,550/-
So far as the first question raised by the Appellant is concerned, the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner is a finding of fact and we see no reason to interfere with that finding in this appeal. So far as the second question is concerned, the argument of the learned Counsel is that the learned Commissioner should have calculated the wages in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, and he having not done so, the compensation awarded by him is not in accordance with law. The Appellant''s learned Counsel was fair enough to concede that the only evidence which the Appellant produced before the learned Commissioner was with regard to the wages paid to the deceased during the month of March, 1983. The Appellant did not produce any evidence regarding the wages or salary paid to the deceased in the 12 months preceding the date of the accident. It would thus appear that the Appellant had withheld material evidence before the learned Commissioner. It was on the basis of the evidence on record that the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the deceased received salary of Rs. 650/- per month. This finding is also a finding of fact which we see no reason to interfere in exercise of appellate powers.
The last question which is raised is with regard to the penalty awarded by the learned Commissioner. It is not disputed that the Appellant did not pay compensation or any part thereof to the Respondents till the award was passed by the learned Commissioner. The Respondents had given notice to the Appellant in the month of November, 1983 to pay compensation in accordance with law. The Appellant, however, failed to pay any compensation to the Respondents. Even during the pendency of the application before the learned Commissioner, the Appellant did not care to pay any amount by way of compensation to the Respondents. The Appellant could have paid the compensation to the Respondents or deposited the amount of compensation with the learned Commissioner under protest. If in the background of these facts, the learned Commissioner thought it proper to award 50 per cent of the amount of compensation by way of penalty, there is no reason for interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate powers. We, therefore, do not see any reason to reduce the amount of penalty as urged by the Appellant.
No other point is raised by the Appellant. The appeal must, therefore, fail.
However, before parting with the appeal we are distressed to observe that the learned Commissioner has not taken care to ensure that the amount awarded is not frittered away. The learned Commissioner should have borne in mind that the compensation amount was awarded to the widow and children of the deceased for their maintenance. The learned Commissioner has completely lost sight of the fact that Respondent No. 1 original Applicant No. 1 is a widow of the workman, who in all probability is illiterate or semiliterate and remaining three Respondents are minors. If the amount of compensation awarded to the Respondents is squandered away, the whole object of awarding compensation would be defeated. In our opinion in cases like this it is the duty of the Commissioners to protect the Applicants or claimants like the Respondents by directing investment of the compensation awarded to them. In case of minors, the Commissioners should invariably order the investment of amount of compensation in long term fixed deposits at least till the date the minors attain majority. The expenses incurred by the guardian of the minors or the next friend, may however, be allowed to be withdrawn. It is also necessary to safeguard the interest of the widows of the workmen who, though adult, may not be in a position to safeguard their own interests on account of lack of education or for other reasons. Therefore, in case of widows also, the Commissioners for Workmen''s Compensation should direct investment of the compensation amount awarded to them and such investment should ordinarily be in long term fixed deposits with nationalised banks. In case where investment in long term fixed deposits with nationalised bank is made, it should be on the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance on the fixed deposit and the interest on the amount invested is paid monthly directly to the claimant or his guardian as the case may be. The same procedure should be followed in cases of Applicants-claimants other than widows and minors who are illiterate. In all cases the Commissioners should grant to the claimants or Applicants liberty to apply for withdrawal in case of emergency. To meet with such a contingency if the amount awarded is substantial, the Commissioners may direct to invest it in more than one Fixed Deposit so that if need be one such Fixed Deposit Receipt can be liquidated. We may draw the attention of the Commissioners for Workmen''s Compensation to a similar view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (R.C. Mankad, J.) was a party in the case of Muljibhai and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, , which dealt with claim for compensation made before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
We, therefore, direct the learned Commissioner to consider the question of investing the amount awarded to the Respondents in fixed deposit or deposits on long term basis to safeguard the interests of the Respondents including Respondent No. 1 who is widow of the deceased workman. The learned Commissioner is directed to pass appropriate order in that regard after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Respondents.
Subject to the above observations, this appeal is dismissed.