Hon'ble SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants against the Judgment/Direction dated 27.4.1998 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Jaipur (for short 'the learned Commissioner') in case No.9/97 by which the claim in favour of the respondent has been allowed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that husband respondent No.1 was working with the appellants RSEB. On 3.12.1994 when the husband of respondent No.l was going with his higher officials of the office work, a road accident occurred in which he died. Behind him he left, Somdutt, Netram (both sons) and Kumar Manju. Thereafter, claimant respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner. Notices were issued. Written statement was filed. Thereafter, the learned Commissioner, after hearing both the parties passed the impugned Judgment. Hence, this misc. appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate the evidence submitted by appellants: There is no circumstance that the deceased could have been treated or deemed as an employee of the appellant Board, as he was not in service of the Co-operative Society on 18.9.1995 when employees were absorbed in Board's service. The learned Commissioner has erred in calculating the compensation to be paid to the claimant on the basis of amended schedule which was introduced in the Workmen Compensation Act w.e.f. 15.9.1995; whereas right of compensation accrued and crystallized on account of death of workman on 3.12.1994 on account of his death. The learned Commissioner has also failed to appreciate that as a gesture of humanity amount of Rs. 73,668/- was deposited on 26.11.1996. Prior to it the widow of the deceased was provided with the annuity amount w.e.f. 1.1.1995. The learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the appellant RSEB was not impleaded as party in the claim petition and in-spite of this fact, directions have been issued against it. He submits that the amount of compensation which has been awarded by the learned Commissioner, has already been disbursed to the claimant respondent No. 1 and nothing remains due. However, he submits that once the amount has been disbursed by the Insurance Company/Institution to the claimant against whom directions for making payment of compensation has been given, then the higher ought not to interfere in such matters which is clear from the case of Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Valsala K. and another, (1999) 8 SCC 254. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has seriously opposed the aforementioned submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Commissioner passed the impugned Judgment/direction after considering the evidence submitted by both the parties. In the instant case the claimant appellant has received the amount of compensation long back. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Commissioner needs no interference of this Court. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case, after carefully scanning the entire material made available to me as also the Judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant, in my considered view, the learned Commissioner has passed the impugned Judgment after properly considering the entire material made available to him. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner needs no interference of this Court.
(3.) IN the result, this misc. appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed after confirming the Judgment dated 27.4.1998 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Jaipur in case No. 9/97.;