FAO No. 1341 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1341 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2011 Smt. Sunita .. Appellant v. Chief Engineer, Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Rohtak and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. S. Malik, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Widow of deceased-Om Parkash is before this court challenging the order passed by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, `the Act') seeking award of interest and also levy of penalty on the respondents for deliberate delay in payment of compensation to her on account of death of her husband during the course of employment. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased husband of the appellant was employed as Assistant Lineman with the respondents. During the course of employment, on 15.4.2005, he suffered electric shock and ultimately expired. The amount of compensation was not paid by the respondents, even though they very well knew that husband of the appellant had died during the course of employment. His age and salary was also well known to them. The appellant filed petition before the Commissioner on 10.3.2008. It was only during the pendency of the petition before the Commissioner that a sum of ` 3,26,140/- was paid to the FAO No. 1341 of 2010 [2] appellant on account of compensation. The Commissioner held that the amount as paid by the respondents was correct in terms of the provisions of the Act and the circumstances of the case did not call for levy of interest or penalty. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 4A of the Act, the employer was duty-bound to pay the amount of compensation to the family of the deceased within one month from the date it became due. The compensation had become due to the appellant immediately after the death of her husband. His age and income were not in dispute. The calculation was to be made in terms of the provisions of the Act. Still the widow was made to suffer for more than three years as the amount was paid to her only after she filed petition before the Commissioner. For the delay in payment of compensation the respondents be directed to pay interest and penalty to the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that immediately after the appellant approached the Commissioner, the amount of compensation was paid. The appellant is not entitled to any interest as the delay is not attributable to the respondents. In similar line was the contention with regard to levy of penalty. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Section 4A of the Act provides that compensation under the Act is to be paid when due. The aforesaid provision has been interpreted to mean that payment should be made immediately after receipt of information about the accident. In the present case, the factum about the information regarding the accident being in the knowledge of the respondents cannot be denied for the reason that the deceased was admittedly working with the respondents and had died during the course of employment. The Act is a welfare legislation to provide some solace to the family of the deceased. In the present case, the respondents kept quiet for a period of more than three years. They rather deposited the compensation with the Commissioner after it was sanctioned for payment on 12.9.2008. The claim petition was filed by the appellant before the Commissioner on 10.3.2008. As is apparent from the order of the Commissioner, even thereafter the amount remained FAO No. 1341 of 2010 [3] deposited with the Commissioner. As the same was to be released to the appellant on furnishing of some information about the legal heirs of the deceased. That would be a different question, but the fact that the dependent of the deceased was deprived of the compensation for more than three years after the death of her husband during the course of employment, she is certainly entitled to interest on this delayed payment. The interest being awarded is not even equal to the inflation in the market or reduced buying power of the money during the intervening period. As the provisions of the Act provide that interest can be awarded upto a maximum of 12%, considering the period in question, this court finds it reasonable to award interest @ 9% per annum from June, 2005 to August, 2008, as the amount of compensation was deposited with the Commissioner in September, 2008. In addition to the interest, considering the fact that Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam is an entity of the State, it should have behaved like a model employer. Immediately after the death of the workman, whatever family of the deceased was entitled to as terminal benefits under the service rules or any other statute, the same should have been paid. Money is not the substitute for the loss, but still life has to go and for day- to-day needs, in the absence of bread earner of the family, money is required and the most at the initial stage. I find inordinate delay in payment of compensation to the family of the deceased was not bonafide. On account of this, the respondents deserve to be penalised. Accordingly, penalty to the extent of 25% of the amount of compensation is imposed. The amount of interest and penalty be paid to the appellant and other legal heirs to whom the compensation was disbursed by the Commissioner by way of demand draft within 2 months of receipt of a copy of this order, otherwise the amount due shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order till payment. The appeal is disposed of in the manner indicated above. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 9.2.2011 mk