IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.111 of 2004. Reserved on: 03.11.2008. Date of decision: November 07, 2008. H.P.State Electricity Board & Ors. … Appellants. Versus Bhuvneshwar alias Babeshwar … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellants : Mr.Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr.Dushwant Dadwal, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal has been directed against the award dated 27.2.2004 passed by Commissioner, HPSEB (II) Unit at Mandi, under Workmen’s Compensation Act awarding Rs.35,347 compensation to the respondent. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent had filed claim petition under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident on 2.7.1998 during the course of his employment. It has been pleaded Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… that on 2.7.1998 at about 11 a.m. the respondent had received an electric shock and suffered permanent disability while he was repairing 11 KV line during the course of his employment. He claimed Rs.1,00,000 compensation. The appellants contested the claim petition by filing reply. They admitted that respondent was a lineman working with Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short ‘Board’). They denied the accident. They have also denied that on 2.7.1998 the respondent was deployed on duty at Dairy Farm at Kamad, according to them he was deployed at Salgi. They have pleaded that no notice, as envisaged under the Act, had been given by the respondent to the appellants. The respondent filed the rejoinder and denied the stand taken by the appellants while reiterating the case set up by him in the claim petition. The Commissioner has awarded an amount of Rs.35,347 in favour of respondent vide award dated 27.2.2004, as noticed above. The appellants have filed the present appeal against award dated 27.2.2004. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, H.P.S.E.B. Unit-II has exceeded his jurisdiction by applying the amended …3… provisions of law as amended on 8.12.2000 retrospectively, when the accident in the present case had taken place on 2.7.1998? ii) Whether the Award of the Commissioner is against the provisions of law as the workman had not received the injuries during the employment of the appellants because he was not posted at the alleged place of accident? 3. I have heard Mr.Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.Dushyant Dadwal, learned counsel for respondent and gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent was not deployed at the place where he allegedly got the electric shock. On 2.7.1998 the respondent was deployed at Salgi. The Commissioner has applied amended Act and not the provisions of the Act as on the date of accident. He has also submitted that the evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Commissioner while awarding Rs.35,347 to the respondent, according to learned counsel for the appellants the compensation awarded to the respondent is on the higher side. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned award. He has submitted that it has not been pointed out by the appellants what provisions …4… of the Act after the date of accident were amended and how those provisions have effected the impugned award. He has submitted that out of Rs.35,347 an amount of Rs.21,065 has been awarded towards compensation and balance amount is on account of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 2.7.1998 till the date of decision. The compensation awarded to the respondent is just, equitable and in terms of the evidence which has come on record. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW No.(i) and (ii): 4. The substantial questions of law No.(i) and (ii) are interconnected, therefore, both of them are being taken up together. The learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out specifically what provisions of the Act which was amended on 8.12.2000 have been applied retrospectively. The learned counsel for appellant has ultimately submitted that wages of the respondent should have been considered as on 2.7.1998 and not thereafter. The salary certificate dated 10.4.2000 of the respondent is on record. According to this certificate, the respondent was drawing gross salary Rs.5879 in July 1998. The Commissioner has taken into consideration salary Rs.5879 per month of the respondent while assessing the compensation in the impugned award. In these …5… circumstances, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has taken into consideration higher salary of the respondent while assessing the compensation. The learned counsel for the appellants except for referring the salary of the respondent has not pointed out how the amendment carried out in the Act on 8.12.2000 has affected the compensation awarded to the respondent, therefore, substantial question of law No.(i) is decided against the appellants. 5. The respondent has specifically stated in his statement that he was deployed by the concerned Junior Engineer to repair the main line on 2.7.1998. The case of the respondent is that in that process he sustained electric shock and suffered injuries. The respondent has examined RW-1 M.S.Thakur, Asstt.Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Katola. Admittedly, this witness is not an eye-witness. The appellants have not examined the concerned Junior Engineer to rebut the case of the respondent that he was deployed by concerned Junior Engineer to repair 11 KV line. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent was not on duty when he sustained injuries due to electric shock. The respondent had thus suffered injury during the course of his employment with appellants. The substantial question of law No.(ii) is accordingly decided against the appellants. The …6… Commissioner has properly appreciated the material on record and the award does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. No other point was urged. 7. The result of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The interim order dated 13.7.2004 stands vacated. The award amount, if any, lying in deposit, be refunded to the respondent along with up to date interest. November 7, 2008(soni) ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. …7…