FAO No. 1638 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1638 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.1.2011. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others ....Appellants Versus Santro Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Sukhdip Parmar, Advocate for respondents. RAJESH BINDAL J The challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner (for short 'the Commissioner') awarding compensation along with interest and penalty to the respondents on account of death of Ranbir Singh, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 to 4. Briefly the facts are that Ranbir Singh who was working as driver with the appellants at Sub Division No. 2 Panipat, died in a road accident on 4.10.1999. At the time of accident he was on duty on vehicle bearing Registration No.HR-45-3740. On account of his death the claim petition was filed under the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Commissioner. The amount having been awarded, the appellant-employer is before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though Ranbir Singh expired on 4.10.1999, the claim petition was filed only on 18.8.2005 after a period of about seven years, though in terms of provisions of Section 10 of the Act, the same should have been filed within two years. There was no application seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim petition. He further submitted that the award of penalty and interest to the family of the deceased is also on the higher side. FAO No. 1638 of 2009 -2- On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that immediately after the death of bread earner in the family it was at the stage of starvation. Even the terminal benefits which were due to her not paid in time and the respondents had to approach this Court by filing a writ petition in this Court. He further submitted that no doubt the application was filed after a period of about seven years but prior to that the respondent had been approaching the authorities for grant of benefits available to the family of deceased under the Act and when this amount was not paid they had to approach the Commissioner. Regarding delay the submission was that even in the reply filed by the appellants before the Commissioner, no such plea was raised and in the absence thereof it can very well be presumed that the appellants did not have any objection to the filing of application which was beyond the period of two years as prescribed under Section 10 of the Act. Proviso thereof otherwise gives ample powers to the Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the application. The award of interest and the penalty is also strictly in terms of provisions of the Act. Section 4(A) of the Act provides that interest can be awarded to the extent of 12% per annum whereas penalty to the extent of 50% could be imposed whereas the interest awarded in the present case is merely @ 10% per annum and the penalty imposed is 25 %. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The undisputed facts on record are that deceased Ranbir Singh was working as driver with the appellants, who died while on duty on 4.10.1999. In terms of provisions of section 4 of the Act, the family of the deceased, who dies during the course of employment, is entitled to seek compensation for which the manner of calculation has also been provided. It cannot be denied that the death of the employee of the appellants was not within the knowledge of the appellants. It is the duty of the appellants to pay the compensation to which the family of the deceased employee is entitled to, in terms of the provisions of the Act, immediately after his death. The stage of filing of application before the Commissioner and issuance of notices will come later on only in case the employer fails to perform his duty under the beneficial legislation. FAO No. 1638 of 2009 -3- In the present case the employer/appellant did not pay the compensation to the family of deceased immediately after he expired and family had to approach the Commissioner for getting the relief. Even it was also pleaded by learned counsel for the respondents that other terminal benefits having not been paid immediately after the death, for that purpose also she had to approach this Court by filing a writ petition. In case of failure of employer to pay compensation to the family of the deceased immediately or within reasonable time of death, the employer is liable to pay interest and also penalty for the delay. As far as the calculation of the amount of compensation is concerned, the same has not been disputed. The only dispute sought to be raised by the appellants is regarding award of interest and penalty imposed. The interest is only to compensate any person for the delay in payment of money which was due to him. In the present case it cannot be disputed that the amount of compensation that the respondents were entitled to should have been paid immediately on the death of employee or within a reasonable time. The same having been paid belatedly the family is certainly entitled to get interest for the period of delay. The award of interest at the rate of 10% per annum cannot be stated to be on higher side. Even award of penalty cannot be faulted with when Section 4 (1) of the Act provided for levy to the extent of 50%. The Commissioner in the present case has levied penalty only to the extent of 25%. As regards delay no doubt Section 10 of the Act provides for a period of 2 years for filing of application before Commissioner but proviso thereto gives ample power to the Court to condone the delay. In the present case, no objection to the delay in filing of the application was taken by the appellant in the reply to application, hence to claim that the court failed to deal with the issue is totally baseless. For the reasons mentioned above, the present appeal is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 12.1.2011. JUDGE Reema