Paltu Ram Sahu and another Vs Devi Prasad Thakur and others

Chhatisgarh High Court (Single Judge)

ACQA->ACQUITTAL APPEAL [ APPEAL U/S 378 ], 1215 of 2014 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 13, 2015

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1215 of 2014
Appellants : Paltu Ram Sahu and another
VERSUS
Respondents : Devi Prasad Thakur and others
SB: Hon’ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri, J.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present: Shri P.R. Patankar and Shri Utsav Mahiswar, counsel for
the appellants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(13/03/2015)
1. The appeal is against the award dated 25/09/2014 passed in
Case No.28/W.C. Act/2013 Fatal by the Commissioner, Workmen's
Compensation, Labour Court, Durg. By such award, a compensation
of Rs.4,36,800/- was awarded to the claimants. The claimants are
the father and mother of deceased Birendra Kumar Sahu.
2. The brief facts of the case was that Birendra Kumar Sahu was
working as labour under non-applicant No.2 Jitendra Kumar Jain
who was having the vehicle bearing No.C.G. 17-H/0540. On
7/11/2012 at about 11’ O clock while he was loading rice bran in the
vehicle, vehicle came in contact with the electricity wire and thereby
he was electrocuted. It was stated that at the time of death, Birendra
Kumar Sahu was 20 years old and was getting amount of Rs.150/-
per day as wages. On that ground, the claim for compensation was
filed.
3. After adjudication, the learned Commissioner Workmen's
Compensation passed an award on 25/09/2014 which reads as
under:-
**okn iz'u dzekad 06 lgk;rk ,oa O;; %& vkosndx.k dk nkok izekf.kr
gksus ls Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vukosnd
dzekad 03 chek daiuh fu.kZ; fnukad ls 02 ekg ds Hkhrj {kfr/ku :-
436800-00 ¼pkj yk[k NRrhl gtkj vkB lkS :i;s½ U;k;ky; esa tek djsa
rkfd mldk forj.k ,oa vkcaVu e`rd ds vkfJrksa dks fd;k tk ldsaA nks
ekg ds Hkhrj {kfr/ku tek ugh djus ij vukosnd dzekad 03 nq?kZVuk
fnukad ls tek djus fnukad rd {kfr/ku ij 12% okf"kZd C;kt tek
djsxkA mHk;i{k viuk&viuk okn O;; Lo;a ogu djsaxsA**
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would
submit only the payment of grant of interest making it conditional is
against the law which has been settled by the Supreme Court in
2012 AIR (SCW) 4384 in between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Siby George & Ors. He submits that the payment of interest is
consequence of the accident without going into delay or reasons for
it. He therefore submits that irrespective of the reason amount of
award should have carried interest.
5. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question
of law which reads as under:-
“Whether the Court below was justified in not granting interest
upon the awarded amount from the date of application as sub
section 3(a) of section 4 A of the Employee's Compensation
Act?”
6. Limited question falls for consideration before this court as to
what would be the date for application of interest on the awarded
sum. The Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
(supra) has occasion to consider point for commencement of interest
in case under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Supreme Court
while taking into account the law laid down in case of Oriental
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohd. Nasir and Anr. (2009) 6
SCC 280 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed
and Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 349 laid down that both the decisions were
rendered in ignorance of earlier larger Bench decisions of the
Supreme Court with respect to the issue in hand. In case of Pratap
Narain Singh Deo. Vs. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr. AIR 1976 SC
222 issue has been directly answered. Paragraph 7 and 8 are
quoted herein 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 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.
8. 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.”
7. The issue came up before the Supreme Court after
amendment introduced in the Workmen's Compensation Act by Act
No.30 of 1995 wherein the amount of compensation and the rate of
interest were increased with effect from 15/09/1995. Then taking
reference of the law laid down in the case of Kerala State
Electricity Board Vs. Valsala K., AIR 1999 SC 3502 by the three
Judge Bench the negative answers were held on the authority of
Pratap Narain Singh Deo, that the payment of compensation fell
due on the date of the accident.
8. Further Para 2 and 3 of Kerala State Electricity Board
(supra) is quoted herein below:-
“2. 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.
3. A four Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh
Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289: (AIR 1976 SC
222: 1976 Lab IC 222) speaking through Singhal, 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.”
9. It is observed that Pratap Narain Singh Deo verdict was by
four Judge Bench and Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Valsala
K. by the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. Therefore,
following law laid down in decision of Pratap Narain Singh Deo it is
held that payment of compensation would fall due from the date of
accident.
10. Consequently, the law laid down in case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and Anr. (2007) 2 SCC
349 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohd. Nasir
and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 280 which do not fall in line with the Pratap
Narain Singh Deo (supra) which was of four Judge Bench the
payment of interest would be payable from date of accident.
11. Consequently, the interest in the instant case would fall due
from date of accident i.e. from 7/11/2012. Accordingly, it is directed
that the respondent shall be liable to pay the interest from the date of
accident i.e. from 7/11/2012.
12. In view of the above, question of law is answered accordingly
that the interest is payable from the date of accident.
13. Accordingly, appeal stands disposed off with the above
observation.
JUDGE
Headlines
Award of interest under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
is to be from date of accident.
deZdkj izfrdj vf/kfu;e 1923 ds v/khu C;kt nq?kZVuk fnukaWd ls ns;
gksxkA
B.O.
(Gouri Mudaliar)
PS to Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri