Geeta vs M/s Guru Nanak Stone Industries & Another

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kumaon vide judgment dated 17.02.2011.

Claimant's son, namely, Bechelal was serving as helper in a truck bearing Registration No. AS01K/6334 owned by M/s Guru Nanak Stone Industries. On 04.10.2006, while he was helping the driver to reverse the truck, he accidentally came under the rear wheel of the truck and due to the injuries sustained, he died on the same day. After his death, his mother-Smt. Geeta filed an application under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, now known as "Employees' Compensation Act" before the Workman Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kumaon.

Claimant asserted in her claim petition that her son was a young man of 24 years at the time of death, who was getting Rs.4,000/- per month as wages and Rs.50/- per day as diet money from the employer. It was further stated that the deceased was the only son of the claimant and due to untimely death of her son, claimant has lost the sole earning member in the family. She, therefore, claim Rs.4,36,940/- as compensation with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident.

Owner of the truck/employer filed written statement in which he admitted that he was paying Rs.4,000/- per month as wages to the workman, with Rs.30/- per day as diet money.

The Insurance Company in its written statement has taken following pleas in para 7 and 8, which are extracted below:-

"7. That the liability if any, of the answering respondent to indemnify the respondent no. 1 arises by virtue of the insurance policy arises only after the insured has satisfied the Hon'ble Court about the existence of valid insurance policy, correctness of the registration certificate, valid permit, fitness certificate of the vehicle along with the validity and effectiveness of the driving licence of the driver at the time of accident.

That the answering respondent is ready to pay the amount of compensation according to the formula under Workman's Compensation Act as soon as the claimant prove that deceased was under the employment of respondent no. 1 and died in the course of his employment along with the age and wages by reliable documentary evidence, and existence of valid insurance policy."

The claimant was examined before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. In her statement, claimant stated that her son was employed with M/s Guru Nanak Stone Industries in truck No. AS01K/6334 for last seven months. On 04.00 am, her son was run over by the truck, while the truck was being reversed by the driver and due to the injuries sustained by him, he (workman) died on the same day in the Government Hospital. She reiterated her stand that her son was 24 year of age and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as wages and Rs.50 per day as diet money.

Learned Compensation Commissioner assessed the income of the deceased/workman as Rs.2,625/- per month and by applying the multiplier of 218.47 computed the amount payable as compensation to the claimant as Rs.2,61,712/-. It was further provided that in case the amount of compensation is not deposited within one month then it shall carry interest @ 12 % per month.

Thus, feeling aggrieved, claimant has approached this Court under Section 30 of Workman Compensation Commissioner for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

On 20.06.2019, this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:-

"Whether in the light of Section 4A(3) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the interest on the awarded amount should be awarded from the date of death of the Workman under the facts and circumstances of the present case?"

Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submits that in view of the admission made by the employer that deceased was being paid wages @ Rs.4,000/- per month, learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner erred in assessing monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,625/-. He further submits that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs Srinivas Sabata reported in (1976) 1 SCC 289 claimant/appellant is entitled to interest on the amount of compensation from the date of accident. Para 7 of the said judgment, on which reliance is placed, is extracted below:

"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 with 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 an 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."

He has further relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Siby George & others reported in (2012) 12 SCC 540. Para Nos. 10 to 13 of the said judgment are extracted below:-

"10. The matter once again came up before this Court when by amendments introduced in the Act by Act 30 of 1995 the amount of compensation and the rate of interest were increased with effect from 15-9-1995. The question arose whether the increased amount of compensation and the rate of interest would apply also to cases in which the accident took place before 15-9-1995. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Kerala SEB v. Valsala K., answered the question in the negative holding, on the authority of Pratap Narain Singh Deo, that the payment of compensation fell due on the date of the accident. In paras 1, 2 and 3 of the decision this Court observed as follows:

"1. The neat question involved in these special leave petitions is: whether the amendment of Sections 4 and 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act 30 of 1995 with effect from 15-9-1995, enhancing the amount of compensation and rate of interest, would be attracted to cases where the claims in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident caused during the course of employment, took place prior to 15-9-1995.

Various High Courts in the country, while dealing with the claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act have uniformly taken the view that the relevant date for determining the rights and liabilities of the parties is the date of the accident.

A four-Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, speaking through Shinghal, J. has held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim."

The Court then referred to a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi6, and approved it insofar as it followed the decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo.

The decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo was by a four-Judge Bench and in Valsala K. by a three-Judge Bench of this Court. Both the decisions were, thus, fully binding on the Court in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir, each of which was heard by two Judges. But the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo4 and Valsala K. were not brought to the notice of the Court in the two later decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir.

In the light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K., it is not open to contend that the payment of compensation would fall due only after the Commissioner's order or with reference to the date on which the claim application is made. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K. do not express the correct view and do not make binding precedents."

Having considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the claimant/appellant as well as going through the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding income of the workman, Workmen Compensation Commissioner was justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased/workman as Rs.2,625/- per month and also in awarding compensation of Rs.2,61,712/-.

However, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs Srinivas Sabata reported in (1976) 1 SCC 289 and affirmed in subsequent decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Siby George & others reported in (2012) 12 SCC 540, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to interest from the date of filing of the application before Workmen Compensation Commissioner.

Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed and the order passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner is modified and it is provided that the claimant shall be entitled to get interest from the date of filing of application.