1 2025:CGHC:45939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1162 of 2023 1 - Jageshwar Ram Dhankar S/o Late Budhram Dhankar, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village And Post Khadgaon, Police Station-Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (Now District Mohla -Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki) Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Dulaurin Dhankar, W/o Jageshwar Ram Dhankar, Caste Gadariya, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village And Post Khadgaon, Police Station-Mohla, District Rajnandgaon (Now District Mohla -Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki) Chhattisgarh. --- Appellants versus 1 - Bhagwan Singh Chima S/o Indier Singh Chima, R/o Basantpur, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Kamthi Line, Rajanandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents For appellant : Ms. Pranoti Das, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Adv. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Adv. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 09/09/2025 1 Appellants / Claimants have preferred this MAC under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth, referred to as ‘Act of 1923’) against the judgment (award) (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned award’) dated 30-1-2021 passed in Case No. 67/WC Act/2009/Fatal, by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923-cum-Labour Court, Rajnandgaon Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.09.17 11:32:56 +0530 2 (CG) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Labour Court’), whereby amount of 4,42,740/- has been awarded to the claimants as compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. (hereinafter parties shall be referred to as per their description before the Labour Court). 2 Facts of the case are that, claimants are father and mother of deceased Sher Singh Dhankar. Non-applicant No. 1 is the owner of the vehicle truck no. CG 08 B 1622 (henceforth referred to as ‘vehicle in question’) and non-applicant No. 2 is the insurance company with which, the vehicle in question was insured on the date of accident i.e. 27.10.2009. Deceased Sher Singh Dhankar was employed as a driver in vehicle in question. During employment on the date of incident 27.10.2009, he was asked by non-applicant No. 1 to load iron in the truck and take the truck from Rajnandgaon to Nagpur. While going Nagpur, near GE Road No. 06 between village Chirchari and Ghortalav, there was an accident of the vehicle in question with a truck bearing registration No. WB 23 A 8367, in which, Sher Singh Dhankar died on the spot. At the time of death, the age of the deceased Sher Singh Dhankar was 22 years and his monthly salary was ₹ 7000/-. The claimants filed claim application for grant of compensation of Rs. 7,74,795/- with penalty and interest. 3 Non-applicant No. 1 Bhagwan Singh submitted his written statement and pleaded that the deceased Sher Singh was not the regular driver of vehicle of non-applicant No. 1 but was employed on the date of 3 accident for Rs. 200/- per day to drive the vehicle. On the date of accident, the driver of truck bearing registration No. WB 23 A 8367 hit the vehicle of the deceased by driving fast and carelessly, due to which, the deceased Sher Singh died. Non-applicant no. 1 has further pleaded that, vehicle in question was insured with the non-applicant no. 2 and the deceased was having a valid driving licence. Non- applicant no. 1 had immediately informed non-applicant no. 02 insurance company about the accident. Non-applicant no. 1 got Sher Singh treated in Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai as a humanitarian gesture and after Sher Singh's death, the funeral expenses of approximately ₹ 25,000/- were given to his family members. If the claimants are given compensation, then the entire responsibility lies on non-applicant no. 02 insurance company. 4 Non-Applicant No. 02/ National Insurance Company Limited also filed its written statement denying the facts of the application. It has been pleaded that, the driver, owner and insurance company of other vehicle involved in the accident have not been made parties. The deceased Sher Singh did not have a valid driving license on the date of the accident. In such a situation, non-applicant No. 2 is not liable to pay compensation due to violation of the insurance policy. 5 On the basis of pleading of the parties, learned Labour Court framed as many as 7 issues, recorded evidence and vide impugned award, held that, deceased was employee of non-applicant No. 1, he died during course of employment and vehicle in question was insured with non-applicant No. 2, hence, directed non-applicant No. 2 to 4 deposit in the Court amount of compensation of Rs.4,42,740/- within a period of 2 months, for payment to the claimants, failing which, it will be liable to pay 12% interest per annum from the date of accident till its realization. However, the Labour Court has not imposed any penalty on the non-applicant No. 1. 6 Being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 30-1-2021 (Annexure A-1), the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation and for imposing penalty upon non-applicant No. 1. 7 This appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law :- “1. Whether Commissioner-cum-Labour Court erred in law in determining monthly income of deceased to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- and it deserves to be enhanced ? 2. Whether Commissioner-cum-Labour Court erred in law in not imposing penalty upon respondent No. 1/employer ?” 8 Learned counsel for the claimants submits that, deceased was working as driver of the vehicle in question and he died during the course of his employment. He further submits that, monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 7,000/-, but learned Labour Court has assessed his monthly income only Rs. 4,000/-. Hence, it may be enhanced suitably and compensation may be enhanced accordingly. He further submits that, learned Labour Court has erred in law in not imposing 5 penalty upon the non-applicant No. 1/employer as after death of deceased, he has paid only Rs. 5,000/- to the claimants, which has been admitted by the Jageshwar Ram Dhankar (AW 1), father of the deceased, whereas, claim application was filed by the claimants seeking compensation of Rs. 7,74,795/-. Hence, she prays that, compensation on account of penalty be also granted in favour of the claimants from the non-applicant No. 1. 9 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant No. 2/Insurance company would submit, that claimants have not filed any document to prove the fact that, monthly salary of deceased was Rs. 7,000/-. They have not filed any reliable evidence in this regard except making oral version. He further submits that, as per minimum wages declared by the competent authority of the State Government, minimum wage of skilled labour was Rs. 3,367/- for the period from 1-10-2009 to 31-3-2010, the Labour Court has already assessed monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- which is more than minimum wage. Hence, it does not call for any interference. He further submits that, accident of instant case has occurred on 27- 10-2009 and claim case was filed on 17-12-2009 i.e. within 2 months from the date of accident. As per deposition of father of deceased, non-applicant No. 1/employer had paid Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses of the deceased to the claimants and the Labour Court after considering the facts situation of the case, declined to impose penalty upon the non-applicant No. 1/employer, therefore, it also does not call for any interference of this Court. 6 10 Learned counsel appearing for non-applicant No. 1 supported the impugned award. 11 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record of the Labour Court. Substantial question No. 1. 12 The deceased was working as driver of vehicle in question and he died during the course of his employment. Jageshwar Ram Dhankar (A.W. 1), who is father of deceased, has stated that, monthly salary of deceased was Rs. 7,000/-, but his own witness Krishna Kumar Nayak (AW 2) has deposed that, he also drives the vehicle of “Randhava Transport” and his monthly salary is Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, what was the monthly salary of deceased, is itself contradictory from the evidence of both the applicants witnesses, whereas as per minimum wage declared for fateful period by the competent authority of the State Government for skilled labour was Rs. 3,367/-, but the Labour Court has already taken monthly salary of deceased to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-, which is more than minimum wage for skilled labour. Therefore, in absence of any concrete evidence, only on the basis of contradictory statement of applicants’ witnesses, it cannot be held proved that, monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 7,000/-. Hence, monthly income of the deceased assessed by the Labour Court does not deserve to be enhanced. Accordingly, the 1st substantial question of law is answered in negative form. 7 Substantial question No. 2. 13 Provision of penalty has been contemplated in Section 4A of the Act of 1923, which reads thus :- “4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.—(1) Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the employee, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the employee to make any further claim. (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) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (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: 8 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. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “scheduled bank” means a bank for the time being included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934). (3-A) The interest and the penalty payable under sub- section (3) shall be paid to the employee or his dependent, as the case may be.” 14 Perusal of aforesaid provision shows that, if employer does not accept liability for compensation to the extent claimed, then he is bound to make provisional payment, which he accepts and the same shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the employee. Clause 3(b) of Section 4-A of the Act, 1923 provides that, in the opinion of Commissioner, if there is no justification for the delay in payment, then it shall direct to pay penalty on the amount of arrears and interest, after providing opportunity to employer. 15 In instant case, Jageshwar Ram Dhankar (AW 2) has admitted that, after death of deceased, non-applicant No. 1 had given Rs. 5,000/- on account of financial help, which has also been observed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court considered the factum of imposing penalty in para 14 of the impugned award, but the reason assigned by the Labour Court for not imposing penalty is not found to be appropriate. 16 As per Section 4A of the Act of 1923, as soon as accident occurres 9 and claim application is filed, then it is the duty of the employer to pay compensation to the injured/family of the deceased, to the extent of amount as claimed by them or he shall have to deposit provisional amount on the basis of extent of liability, which the employer accepts. In instant case, the accident occurred on 27-10-2009 and claim was filed on 17-12-2009 claiming the amount to the tune of Rs. 7,74,795/-, but the employer paid only Rs. 5,000/- to the family of the deceased as financial help, which is very meager amount. Thus, there is no justifiable reason for not imposing penalty upon the non-applicant No. 1, as despite death of deceased occurred in the year 2009, amount of compensation was paid to claimants in the year 2021 after passing of impugned award. In between, the non-applicant No. 1 has paid Rs. 5,000/- only to the family of deceased, therefore, I feel inclined to set aside the impugned judgment (award) to the extent of not imposing penalty against the non-applicant No. 1/employer. Consequently, penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh) is imposed upon the non- applicant No. 1/employer, as contemplated under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act of 1923, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum payable from the date of accident till its final realization. Thus, 2nd substantial question of law is answered in favour of claimants and against the non-applicant No. 1/employer. 17 In view of above discussion, instant MAC is allowed in part. The impugned award is set aside to the extent that in addition to the compensation and interest awarded by the Labour Court, the non- applicant No. 1/employer is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One 10 lakh) to the claimants on account of penalty, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till its realization, within a period of 30 days from today. Rest of the terms of impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak