Sivadasan and others v. Union of India

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2012/9TH JYAISHTA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 22991 of 2007 (K)** ## **--------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **-----------------------** **1. SIVADASAN, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEDATHU PADEETTATHIL PALLICKAL NADUVILEMURI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **2. VASANTHAKUMARY, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-** **3. SURESH P.K., RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-** **4. SANTHOSH KUMAR P.K., RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-** **5. SAJEEV P.K., RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-** **6. SREEJA (30), DAUGHTER, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-** **BY ADVS.SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------------------** **1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT NEW DELHI.** **2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER ROADS SEEMA SADAK BHAVAN, RING ROAD DELHI CANTT, NEW DELHI-110 010.** **3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PROJECT DEEPAK, C/O. 56 APO** **4. THE COMMANDING OFFICER, HEAD QUARTERS 38, BRTF, (GREF) C/O.56 APO.** **5. THE COMMANDER, 70 RCC (GREF), C/O. 56 APO.** **BY ADV. SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL BY ADV. SRI. T. P. M. IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST. S. G OF INDIA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **DCS** ## **WP(C).No. 22991 of 2007 (K)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-** **EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2005 IN O.P. NO. 28883/1999 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** **EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. PF/166497X/KS.171/E5 DATED 22.06.2006 OF THE OFFICER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.05.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS FATHER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2007 IN CONT CASE NO. 118/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :-** **EXHIBIT R4(a): COPY OF THE RCC LETTER NO. PF 166497X/KS/322ES DATED 18 MAY 2006** **EXHIBIT R4(b): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.11.2006 OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **DCS** S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 22991 of 2007-K ================== Dated this the 30[th] day of May, 2012 J U D G M E N T The question in this writ petition relates to the date from which interest is payable under Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act for the delay in payment of compensation due to K.Satheesan, the brother of the petitioners herein, who was an employee under the 2[nd] respondent, who died in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioners' father initiated proceedings claiming compensation for the death of his son. Ultimately, he filed O.P.No.28883/1999. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that the petitioners' father, who is also the father of late K.Satheesan, is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. By Ext.P1 judgment, the learned Single Judge directed the 2[nd] respondent herein to pay to the petitioners' father eligible benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Pursuant thereto, the amount of compensation was fixed at ` 1,99,400/-. That amount was paid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19.1.2006 to 18.5.2006 amounting to ` 7,976/-. Ext.P2 is the order sanctioning the same. The petitioners are w.p.c.22991/07 - : 2 :- aggrieved by that part of Ext.P2, whereby the interest is calculated only with effect from 19.1.2006 although Sri.Satheesan died on 1.8.1996. The contention of the petitioners is that it is settled law that the compensation is payable with interest from the date when the compensation becomes payable. It is pointed out that the a Division Bench of this Court in **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekha** , 2007 (4) KLT 386, held that compensation becomes due from the date of accident itself. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition since the father died before he could claim appropriate interest. The petitioners seek the following reliefs; - “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P2, to the extend that it denies the interest from September, 1997, as arbitrary, illegal and opposed to Ext.P1 judgment. - ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to pay the statutory interest under the W.C. Act on Rs. 1,99,400 with effect from the September 1997. 2. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents denying the claim. According to them, the petitioners have no locus standi to file this writ petition insofar as it was their father, who was entitled to compensation for the death of his son, which has been paid to him and only he can raise the claim for interest. They would take another contention that the compensation w.p.c.22991/07 - : 3 :- became due only with effect from the date of Ext.P1 judgment of this Court and not from any day before that date. That judgment was delivered on 23.12.2005, and consequently, interest was paid only from that date. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As far as the first contention is concerned, I am of opinion that the compensation awarded to the petitioners' father becomes part of his estate and all his legal heirs are entitled to take appropriate steps to realise the estate of the deceased father. The estate of the deceased father includes interest due to him in respect of the compensation for death of his son under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, his legal heirs stand in his shoes and they can certainly claim interest also on the compensation amount after the death of the father. The contention of the respondents that since the petitioners are not dependents as defined under Section 2(1)d of the Act, they cannot file this writ petition does not find favour with me. We are not considering the question as to whether the petitioners are dependents of the deceased workman, in this writ petition. That question was relevant only when the father claimed compensation for the death of his son. When the father is w.p.c.22991/07 - : 4 :- accepted as the dependent of the son, and compensation has been found to be due to him, the same includes interest also and for realising the estate of the deceased father, certainly the legal heirs of the father can take appropriate proceedings. While doing so, they are not claiming benefits as dependents as defined under Section 2(1)(d), but only as legal heirs of the deceased father, whose estate they are entitled to realise. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners are entitled to claim interest portion of the compensation as well, which was due to their father. As far as the second contention is concerned, that is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench in **Rekha's case** (supra). In that case, the Division Bench has categorically held that compensation becomes due on the date of the accident itself. If that be so, interest also would run from that date itself. Sri.Satheesn died in the night of 1[st] /2[nd] of August, 1997. Therefore, for compensation of his death, his father was entitled to interest from the date of the accident itself viz., 1.8.1997. Admittedly, interest has been paid only with effect from 19.1.2006. But in this writ petition, the petitioners claim interest only with effect from September, 1997. In the above w.p.c.22991/07 - : 5 :- circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to succeed in this writ petition to that extent. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed directing to pay to the petitioners interest on the amount of ` 1,99,400/- with effect from 1.9.1997 after deducting interest of ` 7,976/- already paid. The difference in interest, as directed above, shall be paid, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. sdk+ Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge