High CourtsDivision Bench

New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Tuniya Devi and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 8 May 2003 · Citation: (2003) 3 JCR 520

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gurusharan Sharma, J · Amareshswar Sahay, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 — Section 30, 4, 4A, 4A(3)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
A.F.O.O. No. 67 of 2001
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 488 words
1.

This appeal has been filed u/s 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') by the Insurance Company against part of the order dated 20.12.2000, passed by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, Hazaribagh, in Workmen''s Compensation Case No. 20 of 2000, whereby interest and penalty is said to have been awarded.

2.

In the operative part of the impugned order the Insurance Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,64,170/- as compensation under the Act to the claimants within 60 days, failing which from the date of order, interest @12% would be payable thereon and if the compensation amount was not paid within 120 days, interest @18% would be payable thereon.

8.

A perusal of the entire order reveals that no proceeding was taken after determination of compensation u/s 4 of the Act regarding payment of interest and penalty, if any, as provided u/s 4A(3) of the Act.

4.

Under the provisions of Section 4A(3) of the Act, where the employer defaulted in paying compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due. The Commissioner was empowered to direct the employer to pay the simple interest in addition to the amount of compensation in arrears @ 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding to the lending rates of any Scheduled Bank as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette, on the aforesaid amount due and further in absence of any justification for the delay, the Commissioner was also empowered to direct the employer to pay further sum not exceeding 50% of the amount of compensation by way of penalty. In the said provision it has also been provided that an order of payment of penalty cannot be passed without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed.

5.

In the impugned order, we find no such order/direction given by the Commissioner either u/s 4A(3) (a) or (b). Here the Commissioner calculated total sum of Rs. 1,64,170/- payable as compensation by the Insurance Company on behalf of the employer and directed to be paid within 60 days from the date of the order, failing which interest @ 12% per annum was payable and further if the amount of compensation was not paid even within 120 days then interest @ 18% per annum was payable thereon.

6.

The Insurance Company has challenged the award in question whereby compensation amount has been calculated and directed to be paid under the Act. In a separate appeal (M.A. No. 68 of 2001).

7.

We, therefore, find that in absence of any order/direction passed by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order u/s 4A of the Art, there was no occasion for the Insurance Company to file the present appeal.

8.

There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly, but without costs.