FAO No. 2982 of 2010 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 2982 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.04.2011 The Sub Divisional Engineer P.S.E.B. and others ...Appellants Versus Shri Bharpur Singh ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate for the respondent. ..... RAJESH BINDAL, J. Challenge in the present appeal filed by the appellants is to the award of the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Commissioner”) dated 26.02.2010. Along with the appeal, an application seeking condonation of delay of 2 days in filing thereof has also been filed. The respondent in the present case was injured during the course of his employment and suffered 100% disability. The accident took place on 2.5.2002. The Commissioner awarded compensation of ` 4,89,240/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 3.6.2002 i.e. one month after the date of accident. Learned counsel for the appellants raised three-fold submissions. Firstly, that a sum of ` 3,00,000/- was paid by the appellants to the respondent in lieu of job to his dependant as per the policy of the Punjab State Electricity Board. The amount deserves to be adjusted out of the amount of compensation as determined by the Commissioner in the present case. Secondly, he submitted that the Commissioner was wrong in awarding interest to the respondent for the period commencing from one FAO No. 2982 of 2010 2 month after the date of accident. Thirdly, the submission was that the present appeal as well as CWP No.17491 of 2006 filed by the respondent, inter-alia, seeking compassionate appointment for his wife, be heard together. In support of his pleas reliance was placed on the judgment of this court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Smt. Joginder Kaur and others (2010-4) PLR Vol.CLX 220 and on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Kamla Chaturvedi Vs. National Insurance Co. and others (2009-1) PLR Vol.CLIII 354. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that ` 3,00,000/- was awarded to the respondent in terms of the policy of Punjab State Electricity Board in lieu of job to the dependants of the respondent. That amount cannot be adjusted against the compensation under the Act. As regards award of the interest, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellants having not paid the amount of compensation to the respondent immediately after the accident, the Commissioner has rightly burdened the appellants by granting interest, as the respondent was deprived of the amount on the due date. As far as third submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the writ petition claim made is altogether different. If the respondents in writ petition are having objections to the prayer of the respondent herein, in the writ petition regarding the amount having been paid in lieu of job to the dependant, the same can very well be raised there. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. It is not disputed that ` 3,00,000/- has been paid to the respondent in lieu of job to be provided to the dependant of the respondent in terms of the policy of Punjab State Electricity Board. The same does not have any bearing on the amount of compensation assessed under the Act, which is in terms of the formula provided therein. As far as award of the interest for the period from one month after the date of accident is concerned, in the present case the appellants FAO No. 2982 of 2010 3 failed to pay the amount of compensation to the respondent immediately after the accident, the appellants have rightly been burdened with the interest. The prayer for hearing of the present appeal along with CWP No.17491 of 2006, is also misconceived as the relief claimed therein is totally different. The appellants can very well raise the issue whatever is available to contest the relief prayed by the respondent in the writ petition. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed and consequently, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is also dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 25.04.2011 sharmila