HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR A 1, SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M. A. No.302 of 2002 ~^lf APPELLANTS RESPONDENT Smt. Shanti Bai and others. Versus Prakash Industries Limited ORDER For Prpnouncement ofOrder 2o .10.2010 Sd/- R.L.Jhawar Judge ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HQN'BLESHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. APPELLANTS RESPONDENT Misc. Appeal No. 302 of 2002 , ^ "^ 1. Smt. Shanti Bai,aged about 30 years, Widow of Kushal Prasad Kewat, resident of village Kamrid, Police Station Saragaon/Bamhni Bazar, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir - Champa (Chhattisgarh) 2. Ku. Savitri Bai (Minor), aged about 14 years, D/o Late Kushal Prasad Kewat 3. Ku. Savita (Minor), aged about 10 years, D/o late Kushal Prasad Kewat. 4. Manoj Kumar (Minor), aged about 6 years, S/o Late Kushal Prasad Kewat. 5. Ku. Pramila (Minor), aged about3 years; D/o Late Kushal Prasad Kewat. No.2 to 5 through mother Smt. Shanti Bai, Widow of Late Kushal Prasad Kewat, resident of village Kamrid, Police Station Saragaon/Bamhni Bazar; Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir ~ Champa (C.G.) VERSUS Prakash Industries Limited, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSAT10N ACT, 1923 Appearance: Shri H.S.Patel,counsel forthe appellants. Shri O.P.Agrawal, counsel for the respondent. ORDER (Passed on<^>. 10.2010) This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 24.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur Korba (for short (the Commissioner') in case No. 111/W.C.A./COC-1-B/02 (F) whereby the »^ learnedCommissioner has awarded a sum of Rs.1,79,632/- to the claimants. 2. This appeal has been admitted on 25.03.2009 and the following substantial questionoflaw has been framed on 19.10.2010: "Whether the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has erred in not imposing penalty and award of interest as per Sectjon 4A (3) of the Act, on the amount of compensation of Rs.1,79,632/-deposited by the employer before the learned Commissioner? 3. Brief facts of the case is that the deceased Kushal Prasad was a workman under the respondent andwas earning Rs.1800/- per month as wages. On 24.10.99 while he was on duty he sustained heavy injury which proved to be fatal and on account of such fatal injury he diedarising out of andin the course ofemployment, on the same day.At the time of death, the age ofthedeceasedwas 32years. 4. On account of death of deceased Kushal Prasad arisingoutof and jn the course ofemployment, the respondent - Prakash Industries Limited had deposited an amount of Rs.1,79,632/- on 03.09.2002 with a letter dated 20.08.2002. After depositing the said amount, a case was registered and notices were issued to the parties and after hearing both the parties, the learned Commissioner has awarded the said amount to the claimants. 5. The claimants have preferred this appeal only on the ground that the learned Commissioner while awarding compensation of Rs.1,79,632/- did neither impose penalty nor award intereston the said amount. 6. Shri H.S.Patel, learned counsel for the appellants argued thatthe learned Commissioner has erred in not imposing penalty of 50% and not awarding interest on the said compensationamountwhereas according to Section 4A (3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, if the compensation is dueand not paid within. one month from the date it fell due, then penalty and interest should be awarded. He further argued that the learned Commissioner ought to have imposed penalty and also awarded interest on the amount deposited with him. ^ 7. On the other hand, Shri O.P.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent argued that this is appeal is not maintainable because before the Commissioner no application for imposition of penalty and award of interest on the compensation amount was filed. He further argued that while recording evidence of Shantibai, wife of late Kushal Prasad, the leamed Commissioner asked her as to whether or not she was satisfied with the amount deposited before the Court upon which she did not dispute in her evidence and was ready to accept the compensation amount of Rs.1,79,632/-. On this ground also, the appeal is not tenable. He also argued that the claimant - Shantibai in her examination-in-chief did not raise any dispute regarding payment of penalty and award of interestfrom the employer and her advocatewas also presentat the time of evidence, therefore, after recording her evidence and after satisfied himself, the learned Commissioner has passed the award. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record of Court belowand impugned award. 9. Having perused the record, it is clear that amount of compensation of Rs.T,79,632/- was deposited by the respondent/employer before the learnedCommissioneron 3.9.2002 onaccount of death of deceased - Kushal Prasad, who died during the course of employment with the respondent. Upon which, the learned Commissioner issued notice and the claimant - Shantibai was present with her advocate at the time of her evidence. It isalso clear from her cross-examination thatwhen learned Commissioner asked her, the claimant Shantibai agreed to receive the amount of Rs.1,79,632/- in full satisfaction ascompensation, whichwas deposited by the respondent. The conduct of claimant Shantibai, upon being asked by the Court, clearly shows that she was completely satisfied with the compensation amount and did not dispute regarding payment of penalty and award of interest on the said compensation. On the evidence of Shantibai, the learned Commissioner, after satisfying himself, has awarded a sum bf Rs.1,79,632/-deposited by the employer/respondent towards compensation on account of death of Kushal Prasad during the course of employment with it. It may be noted that when a person himself or herselfagreed to receive compensation in full satisfaction deposited by the employer, then there will be no occasion to pay him/her penalty and intereston the said amount of compensation. In the instant case, the learned Commissioner, after satisfying himself, has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.1,79,632/-ascompensation and the claimant - Shantibai had also agreed to receive the same in full satisfaction. In thisview of the matter, the question of impositionof penaltyand award of interest does nof arise. The learned Commissioner did not commit any error. 10. In view of the above, the substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 11. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. j Sd/- R.L. Jhawar Judge ,^.