through speed post

Through Speed Post

BEFORE SH. K.M. SINGH, COMMISSIONER (UNDER EMPLOYEEs' COMPENSATION ACT, 1923)

DISTRICT EAST VISHWAKARMA NAGAR, JHILMIL COLONY, SHAHDARA,

DELHI-110032

Case No. CEC/BD/D/28/2007/2-3 29o9 Dated: 02-o9 -

In the matter of:-

Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Late Sh. Gopal Mehto

G-38, Old Seema Puri, Delhi-110095. .Claimant

VERSUS

M/s Delhi Transport Corporation

Through is Chairman-cum- Managing Director

Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

I.P. Depot, New Delhi-110001 Respondent

ORDER

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the claim application dated

25.11.2020 of Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Late Sh. Gopal Mehto, the

claimant under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act,

1923 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) séeking penalty

compensation.

2. That the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated

21.11.2019 in FAO No. 230/2017 and CM No. 19169/2017 set

aside the order dated 20.03.2017 imposing penalty passed by the

then Commissioner Employees Compensation for consideration

and render for first decision after hearing both parties and giving them appropriate opportunity to present their respective place and

Page I of 8

*** A

directed both the parties to appear before the Commissioner

Employees Compensation on 18.12.2019.

3 That AR of Claimant appcared on 07.01.2020 but none was

present on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, notice was served

to respondent. The claimant filed an application mentioning therein that they had filed a'claim petitioh before Commissioner

Employec's Compensation on 18.12.2007 titled as Smt. Krishna

and Ors. V.s DTC which was allowed on 02.11.2012 with the

direction to them to pay a sum of Rs.6,65, 160/- alongwith 12%

interest w.e.f. 30.06.2006 till date of realization. It

stated by the claimant that the respondent challenged the award

dated 18.10.2012 by filing appeal bearing no. FAO 82/2013

before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court

vide order dated 07.02.2014 allowed the appeal and set-aside the

award passed by the then Commissioner Employee's Compensation. It has also been stated by the claimant that she

filed an appeal no. 8984/2014 against the order dated 07.02.2014

of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble Supreme Court

vide order dated 12.08.2016 allowed the appeal and the

respondent paid the awarded amount of Rs.14,87,886/- vide DD

no. 672776 dated 19.10.2016 drawn on Syndicate Bank to her.

The claimant has further submitted that the fact that her husband

driver Gopal Mehto died due to accident, was in knowledge of

respondent from the day: one and as per law, the respondent

should have deposited the compensation amount within one

month from the date of accident i.e. 26.06.2006 but the

respondent neither paid any provisional compensation to the

claimant nor deposited the same with the commissioner even

after one month of aceident but preferred the litigation only to

of8

harass them which took more than 10 years for receiving the

compensation and has prayed that 50% penalty of the awarded

amount of Rs.6,65,160/- be imposed on the respondent.

4. That the respondent filed reply mentioning therein that an award

dated 18.10.2012 was passcd by the then Commissioner

Employec's Compensation with the direction to them to pay a

sum of Rs.6,65,160/- alongwith 12% interest w.e.f. 30.06.2006

till date of realization. The respondent has further submitted that

they challenged the award dated 18.10.2012 by filing appeal

bearing no. FAO 82/2013 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

and deposited the awarded amount alongwith 12% interest on

02.03.2013 vide pay order no.512781 dated 27.02.2013 and the

Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 07.02.2014 allowed the

appeal and set-aside the award passed by the then Commissioner

Employee's Compensation. It has also been submitted by the

respondent that being aggrieved by order dated 07.02.2014 of

Hon'ble High Court, Smt. Krishna Devi approached the Hon'ble

Supreme Court by filing an appeal no. 8984/2014 and the

Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12.08.2016 allowed the

appeal. The respondent has further submitted that ocurrence of

accident and demise of driver Gopal Mehto is a matter of record

and has further submited that as per provisions of the Act,

compensation is to be paid within 01 month from the date it falls

due, if the claimant has claimed the compensation. The

respondent has further submitted that they paid a sum of

Rs.14,87,806/- o the claimant in compliance of order dated

12.08.2016 of Hon'ble Supreme Court The respondent has also

submitted that Section 4 A 2) speaks firstly about the

compensation to be paid when due and penaly for default and in

of8

this case neither claimant claimed any compensation which felt

due and secondly in cases where the employer does not accept

the liability for compensation to the extent claimed shall be

bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of

liability which he accepts and in this case, the liability was not

acceptable by them. The respondent has also submitted that the

ground of litigation is not mentioned anywhere in the Act on the

basis of fixed 50% of compensation amount may be imposed.

The respondent has also mentioned that reply to show cause

notice 24.10.2016 and 15.11.2016 was filed by them mentioning

therein that they have not intentionally or. deliberately delayed

the payment to the wife of deceased Sh? Gopal Mehto but the

delay was due to official proceedings and humbly prayed to

condone the delay of 28 months.

5. That it has already been established and proved that the deceased

Sh. Gopal Mehto was working with the Respondent as a Driver

and died during and in the course of the employment. The

respondent did not pay the compensation 'to the dependents of the

deceased within the prescribed time under the Act, thereafter, the

dependents filed claim application for death compeñsation before

the then Commissioner, Employees Compensation. The then

Commissioner, Employees. Compensation, after. hearing the

pleadings of the parties, documents placed on the record, passed

an order in favour of the dependents of the deceased and directed

the respondent to deposit an amount of Rs. 6,65,160/- alongwith

interest@ 12% P.A. w.e.f. 30.06.2006 vide its order dated

18.10.2012. It is admitted that the respondent has challenged the

order of the then Commissioner, Employees Compensation in the

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide FAO No- 82/2013 and also

.. of 8

deposited the ordered amount of compensation alongwith interest

on 02.03.2013 vide DD No-512781 dated 27.02.2013. The

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 07.02.2014 has

allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent and set aside the

order passed by the then Employees Compensation Commissioner. The claimant Smt. Krishna Devi, being aggrieved

by the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, has challenged

the order in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide appeal no-

8984/2014. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has allowed the

appeal in favour of the claimant vide its order dated 12.08.2016.

As per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the

respondent paid an amount of Rs.14,87,866/- alongwith interest

12% per annum to the claimant on 21.10.2016. Thereafter, the

claimant filed an application for payment of penalty to the extent

of 50% as per the provisions of the Act.

.6. That after going through the proceedings, documents placed on

record, the then Commissioner had passed the Ex-parte order

dated 20.03.2017 directing the respondent to pay an amount of

Rs. 3,32,580/- to the claimant. The respondent had challenged the

above order of the then Commissioner before the Hon'ble High

Court of Delhi vide FAO NO-230/2017 (CM No-19169/2017).

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 21.11.2019

has allowed the appeal filed bý the respondent and set aside the

order dated 20.03.2017 and also directed the Commissioner

Employees Compensation to start a fresh and render a fresh

decision after hearing both the parties and giving them ample

opportunities.

7. That as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the

matter was heard afresh and both the parties were called for

of 8 **

discussions. The respondent filed their reply stating therein that

they had already paid the death compensation alongwith interest

to the dependents of the deceased and there was no penalty

ordered by the then Authority. They have further added that the

delay of 10 years in payment of compensation is not deliberate at

their end but it was due to the process of proceedings and

litigation etc. They further submitted that they acted bonafide and

in accordance with the Act, therefore, the application filed by the

petitioners is liable to be dismissed.

8. That arguments were adduced by both the parties orally

mentioning therein the same contents as mentioned in their claim

application and reply respectively filed by claimant and

respondent.

9. That after going through the facts, circumstances, documents

placed on record, it has been established that the deceased Sh.

Gopal Mehto died during the course of employment with the

respondent on 31.05.2006. Thereafter, the claimant had sent the

demand notice to the respondent for payment of compensation.

As per the provisions of the Act, the payment of compensation

should be paid within 30 days from the date of the accident. But

the respondent had not paid the compensation even after knowing

the facts that the deceased died during the course of the

employment. Moreover, they had moved the matter into the

litigation and had deposited the compensation as per the order

dated 02.11.2012 after 6 years of the death of the deceased and

that compensation was deposited not for disbursement to the

claimant but only for the reason that they were directed by order

dated 15.02.2013 in CM No.2752/13, FAO no.82/2013 of

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to challenge the directions of the

of 8

'

then Commissioner Employees Compensation. Hon'ble Supreme

Court vide order dated 12.08.2016 directed the respondent to pay

the amount of compensation within 06 weeks from the same after O

deducting the amount already paid, if any, but the respondent

even after the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court did not pay the

awarded amount within 06 weeks but paid the awarded amount

to claimant on 19.10.2016 and takes the excuse that the delay

was due to official proceedings and prayed to condone the delay

of 28 days

10.That This act of the respondent proves that the respondent had

delayed the payment of compensation to the dependents of the

deceased deliberately and finally the compensation was paid to

the dependents in Oct-2016 after the orders of Hon'ble Supreme

Court and that too not within the prescribed time Iimit as directed

by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even if the respondent was not sure

of the liability of Compensation under the Act towards the death

of Sh. Gopal Mehto, they should have deposited the

Compensation amount in the account of Commissioner

into Employee's Compensation and should have moved

litigation. As per provisions of the Act, the compensation should

have been paid to the dependents within 30 days of the accident

but it was paid to them after more than 10 years of the death of

the deceased and the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 being

a social legislation, it provides financial support to the families of

the deceased employees who lost their lives during the course of

employment. In this case, the same has not been done and

therefore, it is opined that the respondent had intentionally

delayed the payment of compensation and paid the same even

after the preseribed period as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme

of8

'

Court of India. They should have avoided the litigation

proceedings and if there was any doubt regarding nature of the

accident, they should initially have deposited the compensation

with the Employees Compensation Commissioner within the

stipulated time. In view of the above, it is held that the delay in

payment of the compensation is intentional and the claimant is

entitled to receive penalty compensation from the respondent in

the matter. As far as imposing of percentage of penalty in this

case is concerned, after going through, the proceedings, it is

decided that penalty to the extent of 30% of the compensation

which comes to Rs. 1,99,548/- is imposed upon the respondent.

11.That as decided above, the Respondent M/s Delhi Transport

Corporation is hereby directed to deposit the above amount of Rs. 1.99,548 onaccount of penalty_by way of Demand Draft Pay Order in favour of "Commissioner Employees Compensation District East-1" within 30 days from today,

failing which proceedings to recover the amount of compensation

as well as the interest, as an arrear of land revenue, shall be

initiated as per the provisions of Section 31 of the Act.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on2_day

of. 2021. ,

(K.M.SINGH)

Commissioner, Employees Compensation

of 8

through speed post

Documents