Gaman Devi And Ors vs Jagdish Chandra And Anr

This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act has been preferred by the appellants-claimants claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed with costs and the judgment and award dated 08.12.2006 passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Bhilwara in Case No.13/2003 (Fatal), may kindly be modified and compensation may kindly be enhanced up to as claimed by the appellants in their claim petition along with interest of 12% p.a. from the date of accident and penalty of 50% of the awarded compensation may also be imposed on the respondents.

Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the appeal, may kindly be passed."

The unfortunate road accident had happened on 10.07.2002 resulting into death of Harilal, who was the son of the appellants No.1 and 2, husband of appellant No.3 and father of appellant No.4 while the deceased was working as a cleaner in Truck bearing registration No. RJ06 G 2629.

Learned counsel for the appellants makes a limited submission that the interest @ 12% per annum, which is statutorily provided, ought to have been awarded.

Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Siby George & Ors. reported in 2012(2) ACTC (SC) 851, relevant portion of which reads as under:

Now, coming back to the question when does the payment of compensation fall due and what would be the point for the commencement of interest, it may be noted that neither the decision in Mubasir Ahmed nor the one in Mohd. Nasir can be said to provide any valid guidelines because both the decisions were rendered in ignorance of earlier larger Bench decisions of this Court by which the issue was concluded. As early as in 1975 a four Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo. Vs. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr., AIR 1976 SC 222 directly answered the question. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the decision it was held and observed as follows:-

"7. Section 3 of the Act deals with the employer's liability for compensation. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the employer shall be liable to pay compensation if "personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment." It was not the case of the employer that the right to compensation was taken away under sub-section (5) of Section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil court for damages, in respect of the injury, against the employer or any other person. The employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of the employment. It is therefore futile to contend that the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioner's order dated May 6, 1969 under Section 19. What the section provides is that if any question arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation or as to the amount or duration of the compensation it shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. There is therefore nothing to justify the argument that the employer's liability to pay compensation under Section 3, in respect of the injury, was suspended until after the settlement contemplated by Section 19. The appellant was thus liable to pay compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the appellant, and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary.

It was the duty of the appellant, under Section 4- A(1) of the Act, to pay the compensation at the rate provided by Section 4 as soon as the personal injury was caused to the respondent. He failed to do so. What is worse, he did not even make a provisional payment under sub-section (2) of Section 4 for, as has been stated, he went to the extent of taking the false pleas that the respondent was a casual contractor and that the accident occurred solely because of his negligence. Then there is the further fact that he paid no heed to the respondent's personal approach for obtaining the compensation. It will be recalled that the respondent was driven to the necessity of making an application to the Commissioner for settling the claim, and even there the appellant raised a frivolous objection as to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and prevailed on the respondent to file a memorandum of agreement settling the claim for a sum which was so grossly inadequate that it was rejected by the Commissioner. In these facts and circumstances, we have no doubt that the Commissioner was fully justified in making an order for the payment of interest and the penalty."

Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that also the penalty ought to have been awarded.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company however, opposed the submissions.

Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the statutory interest rate provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act is 12% per annum. Thus, in the given circumstances where there is no dispute on factual matrix, this Court deems it appropriate to substitute the interest part as mentioned in the impugned order, by 12% per annum from the date of accident. The appellants shall also be entitled to receive the penalty amount @ 25% per annum.

The present appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of.