FAO-4932-201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Neeta and others Vs Harpreet Singh and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH Present: Mr. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, for the appellant Mr. for respondent No. HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the award dated 07.03.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, Yamuna Nagar, whereby compensation of Rs.5,14,508/- was awarded to the claimants on account of death o Singh @ Ram Karan, arising out of an accident during the course of his employment. compensation so awarded as also of the failure of the learned Commissioner to address the question of penalty upon approached this Court seeking enhancement of compensation and connected reliefs. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 2017 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4932 Date of Decision: Neeta and others Vs Harpreet Singh and another HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH r.Tushar Prashar, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the award dated 07.03.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, Yamuna Nagar, whereby compensation of was awarded to the claimants on account of death o Singh @ Ram Karan, arising out of an accident during the course of his employment. The appellants, being aggrieved of the quantum of compensation so awarded as also of the failure of the learned Commissioner to address the question of penalty upon approached this Court seeking enhancement of compensation and connected reliefs. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through book. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 4932-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.08.2026 ......Appellants …..Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Tushar Prashar, Advocate for Advocate By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the award dated 07.03.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, Yamuna Nagar, whereby compensation of was awarded to the claimants on account of death of Kaka Singh @ Ram Karan, arising out of an accident during the course of his The appellants, being aggrieved of the quantum of compensation so awarded as also of the failure of the learned Commissioner to address the question of penalty upon the employer, have approached this Court seeking enhancement of compensation and I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through 1 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the award dated 07.03.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, Yamuna Nagar, whereby compensation of f Kaka Singh @ Ram Karan, arising out of an accident during the course of his The appellants, being aggrieved of the quantum of compensation so awarded as also of the failure of the learned the employer, have approached this Court seeking enhancement of compensation and I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through SANJAY GUPTA 2026.09.02 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4932-201 3. It is not in dispute that deceased was employed as a driver on Truck/Trailer bearing registration No. HR C-1465 and died in an accident which took place on 22.02.2013, arising out of and in the course of his employment. 4. The primary grievance urged on behalf of the appellants pertains to the age computing compensation, and consequently, the multiplier adopted. The learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the deceased was 43 years of age, as recorded in the Post the other hand, rely upon the Driving Licence of the deceased, exhibited as Ex.C6, which records his date of birth as 04.05.1973, making him 39 years of age at the time of the accident. On a comparative appraisal of the material available on re Mortem Report, this Court is of the considered view that reliance placed upon the entry in the Driving Licence in preference to the age recorded in the Post of the accident, therefore, is required to be reckoned as 39 years. 5. Consequently, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 189.56, and not 175.54 the Government of Haryana during the r calculation, the compensation payable works out to Rs.5,47,803/ compensation awarded is accordingly enhanced from Rs.5,14,508/ Rs.5,47,503/-, in favour of the appellants, together with interest at the rate 2017 (O&M) It is not in dispute that deceased d as a driver on Truck/Trailer bearing registration No. HR 1465 and died in an accident which took place on 22.02.2013, arising out of and in the course of his employment. The primary grievance urged on behalf of the appellants pertains to the age of the deceased applied by the learned Tribunal for computing compensation, and consequently, the multiplier adopted. The learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the deceased was 43 years of age, as recorded in the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.C2). The app the other hand, rely upon the Driving Licence of the deceased, exhibited as Ex.C6, which records his date of birth as 04.05.1973, making him 39 years of age at the time of the accident. On a comparative appraisal of the material available on record, namely the Driving Licence vis Mortem Report, this Court is of the considered view that reliance placed upon the entry in the Driving Licence in preference to the age recorded in the Post-Mortem Report. The age of the deceased of the accident, therefore, is required to be reckoned as 39 years. Consequently, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 189.56, and not 175.54 upon the minimum wages of Rs.5,862/ the Government of Haryana during the r calculation, the compensation payable works out to Rs.5,47,803/ compensation awarded is accordingly enhanced from Rs.5,14,508/ , in favour of the appellants, together with interest at the rate It is not in dispute that deceased-Kaka Singh @ Ram Karan d as a driver on Truck/Trailer bearing registration No. HR-58 1465 and died in an accident which took place on 22.02.2013, arising out The primary grievance urged on behalf of the appellants of the deceased applied by the learned Tribunal for computing compensation, and consequently, the multiplier adopted. The learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the deceased was 43 years of Mortem Report (Ex.C2). The appellants, on the other hand, rely upon the Driving Licence of the deceased, exhibited as Ex.C6, which records his date of birth as 04.05.1973, making him 39 years of age at the time of the accident. On a comparative appraisal of the cord, namely the Driving Licence vis-à-vis the Post Mortem Report, this Court is of the considered view that reliance is to placed upon the entry in the Driving Licence in preference to the age Mortem Report. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident, therefore, is required to be reckoned as 39 years. Consequently, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be the minimum wages of Rs.5,862/- notified by the Government of Haryana during the relevant period. Upon such re calculation, the compensation payable works out to Rs.5,47,803/-. The compensation awarded is accordingly enhanced from Rs.5,14,508/- , in favour of the appellants, together with interest at the rate 2 Kaka Singh @ Ram Karan 58- 1465 and died in an accident which took place on 22.02.2013, arising out The primary grievance urged on behalf of the appellants of the deceased applied by the learned Tribunal for computing compensation, and consequently, the multiplier adopted. The learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the deceased was 43 years of ellants, on the other hand, rely upon the Driving Licence of the deceased, exhibited as Ex.C6, which records his date of birth as 04.05.1973, making him 39 years of age at the time of the accident. On a comparative appraisal of the vis the Post- be placed upon the entry in the Driving Licence in preference to the age at the time Consequently, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be notified by elevant period. Upon such re- . The to , in favour of the appellants, together with interest at the rate SANJAY GUPTA 2026.09.02 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4932-201 of 12% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the accident till the date of actual disbursement. 6. The appellants have further urged that although the learned Commissioner accepted the claim petition and awarded compensation with interest, the question o Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 was left unaddressed. Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act reads as under: 7. In such circumstances, without commenting upon merits of the appeal, the matter i purpose to consider and adjudicate the question of imposition of penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 against respondent No.1 compensation and interest awarded in favour of claimants. The needful 2017 (O&M) annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the accident till the date of actual disbursement. The appellants have further urged that although the learned Commissioner accepted the claim petition and awarded compensation with interest, the question of imposition of penalty upon the employer under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 was left unaddressed. Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act reads as under: “4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default. 1. xxx xxx 2. xxx xxx (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall (a) xxx xxx (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent. of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed.” In such circumstances, without commenting upon merits of the the matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner to consider and adjudicate the question of imposition of penalty Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 against respondent No.1-employer while upholding the grant of ensation and interest awarded in favour of claimants. The needful annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the accident The appellants have further urged that although the learned Commissioner accepted the claim petition and awarded compensation with f imposition of penalty upon the employer under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 was left unaddressed. Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act reads as under:- Compensation to be paid when due and penalty xxx xxx xxx xxx Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall— xxx xxx if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent. of such amount by way of penalty: order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why In such circumstances, without commenting upon merits of the s remanded to the learned Commissioner for a limited to consider and adjudicate the question of imposition of penalty Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 while upholding the grant of ensation and interest awarded in favour of claimants. The needful 3 annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the accident The appellants have further urged that although the learned Commissioner accepted the claim petition and awarded compensation with f imposition of penalty upon the employer under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 was left Compensation to be paid when due and penalty Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent. of such amount by way of penalty: order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why In such circumstances, without commenting upon merits of the for a limited to consider and adjudicate the question of imposition of penalty Section 4A(3)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 while upholding the grant of ensation and interest awarded in favour of claimants. The needful SANJAY GUPTA 2026.09.02 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4932-201 exercise be done by concerned after putting them to notice. 8. Disposed of in the above terms. 9. The appellant shall appear before the 14.09.2026. The proceedings be concluded within six months thereafter or else the claimant regarding imposition of cost on the authority from this Court in this appeal. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.08.2026 sanjay Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2017 (O&M) exercise be done by affording due opportunity of h concerned after putting them to notice. Disposed of in the above terms. The appellant shall appear before the 14.09.2026. The proceedings be concluded within six months thereafter or else the claimant-appellant shall be entitled to seek necessary directions regarding imposition of cost on the authority from this Court in this appeal. ending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties The appellant shall appear before the learned Commissioner on 14.09.2026. The proceedings be concluded within six months thereafter or appellant shall be entitled to seek necessary directions regarding imposition of cost on the authority from this Court in this appeal. ending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 4 earing to the parties learned Commissioner on 14.09.2026. The proceedings be concluded within six months thereafter or appellant shall be entitled to seek necessary directions regarding imposition of cost on the authority from this Court in this appeal. ending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2026.09.02 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document