Full Judgment Text
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 113/2021 & CM. APPLs. 10428-30/2021
Date of Decision: 13.12.2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for Ms.
Suman Bagga, Advocate.
versus
SMT. SUNITA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pratap Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. G.C. Shukla, Advocate for
respondent No.2/DMRC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’
Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'EC Act' ), the
appellant/respondent No. 3 has assailed the award dated 03.12.2020 passed
by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, South-West
District in Case No. EC(D)-05/SWD/2020/2225-2228 whereby it has been
directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,67,640/- to the legal heirs/dependant
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:04.01.2023
17:24:58
FAO 113/2021 Page 1 of 4
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000025
of the deceased workman, namely, Pappu alongwith 12% interest from the
date of death.
2. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant has restricted his
submissions to the contention that the amount which was paid by the
respondent No. 3/employer to the respondent No. 1/claimant ought to have
been adjusted towards the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant
as an amount of Rs.4 lacs vide two cheques alongwith an amount of
Rs.2,07,555/- in cash was paid to the wife of deceased workman. He thus
submits that the aforesaid amount be deducted from the amount of
compensation awarded.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have disputed
the abovesaid submission made on behalf of the appellant and sought
dismissal of the present appeal by contending that cheques of Rs.2 lacs each
were voluntarily handed over to the wife of deceased workman by the
respondent No. 2/DMRC and the employer as ex-gratia payments for the
expenses incurred by the family towards the medical bills, transportation
costs, last rites and other miscellaneous expenses.
4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also gone
through the entire material placed on record.
5. In the claim application filed by respondent No. 1, it was claimed that
on 29.05.2017 while being employed with respondent No. 3, the deceased
i.e., Sh. Pappu suffered fatal burn injuries on account of a fire accident
stated to be occurred at the project site. The employer i.e., the sub-contractor
had appeared before the Commissioner and admitted that the accident
occurred during the course of employment. It was also informed that the
employer had taken a workman compensation policy from the present
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:04.01.2023
17:24:58
FAO 113/2021 Page 2 of 4
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000025
appellant. It was also stated that the amount was paid to the wife of deceased
to overcome the burden of immediate financial crunch.
6. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner while considering the stand
taken by the parties directed that the compensation amount be paid to the
legal heirs of the deceased workman.
7. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant, when examined in
light of Section 8(1) of the EC Act, needs outright rejection as the payments
were made voluntarily and directly prior to filing of any claim application
and not as an interim compensation. Further, the payments made are not
covered by the proviso. The relevant part of the said Section reads as under:
“ 8. Distribution of compensation .- (1) No payment of
compensation in respect of a [employee] whose injury has *
resulted in death, and no payment of a lump sum as
compensation to a woman or a person under a legal disability,
shall be made otherwise than by deposit with the Commissioner,
and no such payment made directly by an employer shall be
deemed to be a payment of compensation.”
8. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in New Delhi Municipal Council v .
Asha Devi reported as 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5731 while relying on an
earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v . Hira
Rani, W.P. (C) 4897/2007 also concluded that an ex-gratia payment would
not qualify as an interim compensation and thus not liable for deduction. To
the similar extent are the observation of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in
State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v . Guddi Devi and Others reported
as 2019 SCC OnLine HP 1209.
9. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, I find no merits in the
present appeal, and the same is dismissed alongwith miscellaneous
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:04.01.2023
17:24:58
FAO 113/2021 Page 3 of 4
Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000025
applications. This Court on 26.07.2021 noted the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant and directed the Commissioner not to disburse any
further amount to the claimant.
10. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the learned
Commissioner is directed to release the balance amount of compensation
alongwith the interest accrued thereon, if any, to the respondent
No. 1/claimant within a period of five weeks from today.
11. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned
Commissioner for information.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 13, 2022/v
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:04.01.2023
17:24:58
FAO 113/2021 Page 4 of 4