IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.416 of 2006 THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Electric Supply Division, Muzaffarpur, East- Muzaffarpur--------- Appellant Versus 1. PRESIDING OFFICER, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur-Cum-Workmen’s compensation Commissioner 2. Most. Rup Kala Devi, Widow of Late Someshwar Jha, Residence of Village- Chakhasan Bangra, P.O.- Purushotampur, P.S.- Muzaffarpur Sadar, District- Muzaffarpur---------- Respondents ----------- 7 10.2.2009 This appeal has been filed on behalf of the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Muzaffarpur against the order passed by the Labour Commissioner, Muzaffarpur for payment of compensation due to death of Someshwar Jha, an un- skilled worker in the Supply Division of Electricity Department, Muzaffarpur. Three points have been raised before this court. The first question that has been raised is that Someshwar Jha did not die in course of duty. It has been stated that Someshwar Jha was posted in the Electric Supply Division, Muzaffarpur. On the fateful day of the occurrence i.e. 18.3.1983 the Executive Engineer, Rural Electrification called Late Sri Jha and asked him to repair a fault in the pole at Bochaha block of Muzaffarpur district. Late Sri Jha received a shock as a result of which he fell down. His statement in the hospital was recorded and he died while being treated on 24.11.1983. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased ought not to have gone to Bochaha block as he was not authorized to go in that block and as such he did not die while doing his duty. After going through the facts which have been discussed at some length by the court below, I find that Someshwar Jha was 2 picked up by the Electrical Executive Engineer and it was for the during the course repairing the fuse at Bochaha and he received serious injury while repairing the pole on the orders of the Electrical Executive Engineer. It would, therefore, not be appropriate to hold that Late Sri Jha did not die while on duty. The second issue raised before this court is that the claim raised on behalf of Rup Kala Devi, widow of Late Sri Jha is not maintainable as the Board has not been made party, rather, the Electrical Executive Engineer has been made a party. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that section 12 of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948 provides that the Board shall be a body corporate by the name notified in sub-section (1) of section 5 with the power to acquire and hold property both moveable and immoveable and shall by the said name sue and be sued. It is said that by virtue of provisions of aforesaid section 12, the claimant could not have filed a case without making the Board a party in the case. It is surprising that this issue was not raised by the Electrical Executive Engineer who appeared in the court below and filed a written statement regarding the claims in the case. It is not the case of the appellant to ask for payment from an individual member working under the Board, rather, the case of the claimant was that her husband was an employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board and died in course of duty and, therefore, should be paid compensation by the Board. The reliefs sought for was not from individual member but from the employer who in this case is the Board. This objection ought to have been raised at the initial stage. 3 Besides this section 82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act provides that no such, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any member or officer or other employee of the Board for anything which was done in good faith or intended to be done under this Act. The Electrical Executive Engineer in good faith had called upon the claimant’s husband to repair a fuse. It was due to some fault or an accident that the claimant’s husband met with an accident which led to his death. The Electrical Executive Engineer was performing his duty and in the course of his work he picked up the petitioner to repair the fault that had arisen in the Boccha Exectric line. Besides this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant submits that the definition of the term “employee” under Worksmen Compensation Act is specific inasmuch as it says that an employee includes any body or person. It is submitted that all the witnesses examined in this case are employees of the Board who all have stated in their evidence the facts relating to the accident which took place on 18.11.1983. It is, therefore, apparently clear that the board cannot raise the issue that the Electrical Executive Engineer was not entitled to represent the Board or that he had appeared in his individual capacity and not as a representative of the Board. Finally it has been submitted before this court that the date of accident was 18.11.1983 and the tribunal has fixed the compensation on the basis of the amended Act whereas the compensation ought to have been fixed under the provisions of the 4 Worksmen Compensation Act, 1923. I cannot dispute the proposition of law framed by the counsel for the appellant. The proposition of law also supported by a case reported in (1999)8 S.C.C. 254, Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Valsamma, K & Anr. and also reported in 2003(3) PLJR 420 Divisional Manager Vs. Smt. Runa Devi & Ors. In the case which was before the Supreme Court, the Court considering the facts of the case refused to interfere on the ground that the time elapsed since the accident had taken place and the disposal of the case was considerable. Similarly, in the present case the accident in this case took place in 1983 and the order of the tribunal is dated 11th September 2006. I find that the claimant had to fight a long legal battle in order to be paid some sort of compensation for the death of her husband. The amount awarded by the tribunal is Rs. 66,084/- along with 6 per cent interest which is a meager amount and even if the amount was to be calculated in accordance with the Worksmen Compensation Act 1923, the Court would have more than less come to the same conclusion that the claimant would be entitled for the same amount on account of death loss and pain and funeral expenses of the deceased workmen. As such I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Claims tribunal dated 11.9.2006. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)