Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shriram General Insurance Company ... vs Mahender Kumar & Another on 28 December, 2023
Author: Sushil Kukreja
Bench: Sushil Kukreja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 255 of 2015 a/w FAO No. 399 of 2015 Reserved on: 11.12.2023 .
Date of decision: 28.12.2023 ________________________________________________
1. FAO No. 255 of 2015:
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited.
.....Appellant.
Versus Mahender Kumar & another.
of ......Respondents.
2. FAO No. 399 of 2015:
rt Mahender Kumar.
.....Appellant.
Versus Hem Raj & another.
......Respondents.
________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.1
Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________
1. FAO No. 255 of 2015:
For the appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For respondent No. 1: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate.
2. FAO No. 399 of 2015:
For the appellant: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate.1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 2
For respondent No. 2: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Since both these appeals are the outcome of .
judgment passed by Commissioner Employee's Compensation Act, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 2/2 of 2011, dated 22.11.2014, the same are taken up together for disposal.
of 2. FAO No. 255 of 2015 The present appeal is maintained by the rt appellant/Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurer"), against the order passed by Commissioner Employee's Compensation Act, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 2/2 of 2011, dated 22.11.2014, whereby the claim petition, filed by the petitioner, under Section 22 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the EC Act"), was allowed and an amount of Rs.8,58,720.05/- was granted as compensation in favour of the petitioner and against the Insurer.3. FAO No. 399 of 2015
The present appeal is maintained by Shri ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 3 Mahender Kumar, who was the petitioner before the learned Court below (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner"), against the order passed by Commissioner Employee's .
Compensation Act, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 2/2 of 2011, dated 22.11.2014, whereby the claim petition, filed by the petitioner, under Section 22 of the EC Act, was allowed and an amount of Rs.8,58,720.05/- was of granted as compensation in his favour and against the Insurer, seeking modification of the aforesaid order by rt awarding penalty to the extent of 50% of the compensation amount in his favour and to award the interest as per the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, alongwith costs throughout.
4. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the EC Act against the respondents seeking compensation. As per the petitioner, he was working as Driver and was engaged as Driver by respondent No. 1-Shri Hem Raj, in his vehicle, bearing registration No. HP-14-5991, and the petitioner used to drive the aforesaid vehicle, as per the directions of Shri Hem Raj. On 03.10.2009, around 09:30 p.m., the petitioner, was driving the aforesaid vehicle ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 4 carefully and when he reached near HPMC Store Jogsha, Kumarsain, the vehicle met with an accident and he sustained multiple injuries. The petitioner was taken to CHC, .
Kumarsain, for first aid and he was referred to IGMC, Shimla.
As per the petitioner, he spent Rs.2,80,000/- on his treatment and after the accident he became permanent disabled. The petitioner was 21 years old when the aforesaid accident of occurred and he was getting Rs.8000/- per month, as salary, and Rs.70/- as daily expenses. The aforesaid accident rt occurred during the course of employment of respondent No. 1-Shri Hem Raj. The vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2-Insurance Company, therefore the respondents are liable to compensate him for his multiple major injuries/permanent disablement. The petitioner further averred in his claim petition that his family members were fully dependent upon his earnings and due to his sudden and untimely permanent disablement, the petitioner and his family members suffered mentally, physically and financially.
Lastly, the petitioner prayed that his petition be allowed.
5. The respondents (respondent No. 1-Shri Hem Raj, owner of the offending vehicle, and respondent No. 2- Insurer) were summoned by the learned Court below, but ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 5 respondent No. 1 did not appear and was ultimately proceeded against ex parte. Respondent No. 2-Insurer filed reply to the claim petition, wherein it was averred that neither .
the petitioner nor respondent No 1 placed on record the policy particulars of the offending vehicle, therefore, in the absence of any particulars, insurer stated that it cannot state whether the accidental vehicle was insured. It was further of stated that particulars of driving license, if any, held by the driver of the alleged vehicle at the time of the accident, have rt not been disclosed. The driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license, thus he is not entitled to drive the offending vehicle. Moreover, respondent No. 1 had not placed on record the copy of RC, permit, if any, and Fitness Certificate etc. The insurer also denied that the petitioner was engaged as Driver by the respondent No. 1 to drive the offending vehicle. As per the reply of the Insurer, it was denied that on 03.10.2009 the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident and the petitioner sustained multiple injuries/permanent disablement. The Insurer also denied that the medical treatment was got conducted and the petitioner was getting Rs.8000/- per month as salary and Rs.70/- as daily expenses from respondent No. 1. It was ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 6 denied that the Insurer is liable to compensate the petitioner and that the family members of the petitioner were fully dependent on the income of the petitioner. Lastly, the .
dismissal of the petition was prayed.
6. On 22.11.2012, the learned Court below framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication:
"1. Whether the petitioner being an employee of respondent No. 1 died in of the course of his employment as alleged? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 answered in affirmative whether the petitioner is entitled for rt compensation under the Employee Compensation Act, as alleged? OPP
3. Whether the vehicle in question was insured by respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP
4. Whether the petitioner was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR
5. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form?
OPR
6. Relief."
7. After deciding issues No. 1 to 3 in favour of the petitioner and issues No. 4 and 5 against the respondents, the claim petition was allowed, hence the Insurer filed the instant petition, i.e., FAO No. 255 of 2015, with a prayer to quash and set-aside the impugned award with costs ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 7 throughout and the petitioner (claimant) maintained FAO No. 399 of 2015, with a prayer to allow his appeal throughout with costs, by modifying the impugned order and .
consequently awarding penalty to the extent of 50% of the compensation amount and to award interest as per the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.
of
8. On 15.07.2015 FAO No. 255 of 2015 was admitted on the following substantial question of law:
rt"Whether the learned Commissioner below has erred in calculating the compensation as per Section 4(1)(b) of the Act instead of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Employee's Compensation Act and its effects?"
9. On 15.10.2015 FAO No. 399 of 2015 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
"1. Whether the learned Commissioner below is right in not awarding the penalty as envisaged under Section 4-A of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, especially when, the respondent No. 1 being the employer of the appellant did not pay the amount within one month from the date of accident despite the fact that he was having the knowledge that the appellant sustained injuries in the accident during the course of employment with him?
2. Whether the learned Commissioner below is right in not awarding the interest till the time the compensation amount is either deposited by the respondents before the ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 8 learned Commissioner or paid to the appellant?"
10. I have heard the Senior Counsel/Counsel for the respective parties and carefully examined the entire record.
.
11. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in FAO No. 255 of 2015) contended that the learned Commissioner below has erred in calculating the compensation, as the petitioner has suffered 20% permanent of disability, but while awarding compensation, the learned Commissioner rt below calculated the compensation in accordance with Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, whereas the same ought to have been calculated as per Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act.
12. The perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was working as a driver with respondent-Hem Raj, who was the owner of the offending vehicle, having registration No. HP-14-5991. On 03.10.2009, while the petitioner was driving the above said vehicle, it met with an accident, as a result of which, he sustained multiple injuries on his body and also sustained permanent disability.
13. PW-1, Dr. Ashish, had issued Disability Certificate, Ex. PW-1/A, in favour of the petitioner and while appearing in the witness-box, he deposed that the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 9 suffered 20% disability, which is permanent in nature. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the injuries, as per the Disability Certificate, will improve with .
time.
14. The award of the learned Commissioner below has mainly been challenged on the ground that the learned Commissioner below has wrongly calculated the amount of of compensation as per the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, whereas it ought to have been calculated in terms of rt Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act.
15. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, which reads as under:
"4. Amount of compensation.- Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:-
(a) ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(b) where an amount equal to [sixty per
permanent total cent.] of the monthly wages of
disablement the injured [employee
results from the multiplied by the relevant
injury factor;
or
an amount of [one lakh and
forty thousand rupees],
whichever is more:
(c) where
permanent (i) in the case of an injury
partial specified in Part II of Schedule
disablement I, such percentage of the
result from the compensation which would
injury have been payable in the case
::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS
10
of permanent total disablement
as is specified therein as being
the percentage of the loss of
earning capacity caused by
that injury; and
(ii) in the case of an injury not
specified in Schedule I, such
percentage of the
.
compensation payable in the
case of permanent total
disablement as is
proportionate to the loss of
earning capacity (as assessed
by the qualified medical
practitioner) permanently
caused by the injury;
of
16. Admittedly, the injuries/disability sustained by the petitioner does not fall either under part one or under part rt two of Schedule-I. In case of a non-scheduled injury falling within the scope of section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the legislature has not fixed any percentage of loss of earning capacity by creating deeming fiction. Therefore, in such type of cases, it will be necessary for the workman to show by leading evidence that as a matter of fact he has suffered loss of earning capacity to a particular extent and that he will be entitled to compensation commensurate with the loss of earning capacity suffered by him. This is essentially a matter of inquiry involving examination of facts and to a great extent guesswork to be made by the Commissioner and the court.
However, in both types of cases of injuries, the basic criterion ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 11 for determination of amount of compensation is the same, i.e., the loss of earning capacity.
17. In Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Shrinivas .
Sabata and another, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 222, there was personal injury to a carpenter in the course of employment and there was amputation of left hand above elbow. Since carpenter cannot work with one hand, it was of held that disablement is total and not partial. Supreme Court observed as under:
rt"4. It has not been disputed before us that the injury in question was caused to the respondent by an accident which arose out of an in the course of his employment with the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the injury resulted in amputation of his left arm at the elbow. It has however been argued that injury did not result in permanent total disablement of the respondent, and that the Commissioner committed a gross error of law in taking that view as there was only partial disablement within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act which should have been deemed to have resulted in permanent partial disablement of the nature referred to in Item 3 of Part II of Schedule I of the Act. This argument has been advanced on the ground that the amputation was from 8" from tip of acromion and less than 4 ½" below tip of olecranon. As will appear, there is no force in this argument.
"5. The expression "total disablement" has been defined in Section 2(1)(1) of the Act as follows:::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 12
"(1) "total disablement" means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement."
.
It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is whether the disablement incapacitates the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his finding as follows:
of "The injured workman in this case is carpenter by profession....... By loss of the lift hand above the elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be down by one rt hand only."
This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to assail it on any ground and it does not required to be corrected in this appeal. There is also no justification for the other argument which has been advanced with reference to Item 3 of Part II of Schedule I, because it was not the appellant's case before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm was from 8" from tip of acromion to less than 4½" below the tip of olecranon. A new case cannot therefore be allowed to be set up on facts which have not been admitted or established."
18. Similarly, in Rayapati Venkateswar Rao vs. Mantai Sambasiva Rao and Anr. (2001 ACJ 2105), it has been observed as under:
"10. ... ... ... ...According to the medical evidence, the applicant cannot perform his duties as a cleaner as he was performing prior to the accident and he has to use a stick to walk, So it is very clear from the evidence and findings ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 13 of the learned Commissioner that the appellant cannot perform his duties as a cleaner as he was performing on the day of accident and as per the settled legal position as extracted above, it has to be held that when once the workman was incapacitated and unable to perform his duties .
what he is performing on the day of accident, even though the physical disability sustained is 20 to 25 per cent, he loses his earning capacity by 100 per cent."
19. In G. Anjaneyulu v. Alla Seshi Reddy and Anr.
of 2002 ACJ 1392, it has been laid down that;
"5. ... ... ... ... ...No doubt this rt court and the Hon‟ble Apex Court in a number of cases held that if the workman is unable to perform his duties as he was performing on the day of accident, his loss of earning capacity should be taken as 100 per cent irrespective of the percentage of disability sustained by the workman." ... ... ... ...
20. In (2018) 15 SCC 246, Sri Eregowda alias Vasu vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"2. The appellant is a driver by profession and in an accident that had occurred on 21-12-1999 he had suffered certain injuries resulting in the following disabilities as found by the Medical Expert who had the occasion to examine and treat the appellant:
"(1) Wasting and weakness of muscles of left upper limb.
(2) Tenderness and deformity of left forearm.
(3) 2 operated scars over left forearm.::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 14
(4) Restriction of movements of left wrist by last 10 degrees and left forearm by last 20 degrees.
(5) Shortening of 2 cm of left upper limb.
The radiological examination showed the .
following:
(1) Malunited colles' fracture of left forearm.
(2) Absence of lower end of left ulna with secondary arthritis of left wrist with decreased interosseous space of left forearm."(3)
of
3. On the basis of the aforesaid injuries, the doctor had assessed the physical disability suffered to the extent of 52%. Accordingly, compensation was worked out by the learned rt Commissioner by taking into account the loss of earning capacity to be 50% of the income that the appellant was earning which was quantified at Rs.4500 per month.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
5. We have perused the medical evidence on record. Having regard to the same and the nature and extent of the injuries suffered which have been extracted above we are of the view that the appellant would not be able to discharge the duties of driver any further. Though the physical disabilities in the present case has been assessed at 52%, the loss of earning capacity would be 100%. For the aforesaid reasons, we modify the award of the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Labour Officer, Dairy Circle, Bangalore and award compensation on the basis of 100% loss of earning of the appellant i.e. Rs.4500 per month. The compensation will now be recomputed on the aforesaid basis by the learned Commissioner and the balance compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereon be paid to the appellant by the insurer forthwith."
21. Recently in Indra Bai vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 543, it has ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 15 been held as under:
"28. In the light of the aforesaid decisions and the definition of the term "total disablement"
as provided by clause (I) of sub-Section 2 of the Act, it is the functional disability and not just the physical disability which is the determining factor .
in assessing whether the claimant (i.e. workman) has incurred total disablement. Thus if the disablement incurred in an accident incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement, the disablement would be taken as total for the purposes of award of compensation under section 4(1)(b) of the Act regardless of the injury sustained being not one of as specified in Part I of Schedule I of the Act. The proviso to Clause (I) of sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not dilute the import of the substantive clause. Rather, it adds to it by rt specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there is permanent total disablement.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
31. In the instant case, on the basis of medical certificate provided by the Board, the Commissioner found the appellant unfit for labour inasmuch as there was complete loss of grip in appellant's left hand. Prior to the accident, the appellant worked as a loading/unloading labourer. Even if she could use her right hand, the crux is whether she could be considered suitable for performing her task as a loading/unloading labourer. Such a task is ordinarily performed by using both hands. There is no material on record from which it could be inferred that the appellant was skilled to perform any kind of job by use of one hand. It is also not a case where the appellant had the skill to perform her job by using machines which the appellant could operate by using one hand. In such circumstances, when the Board had certified that the appellant was rendered unfit for labour, there was no perversity in the decision of the Commissioner in awarding compensation by treating the disability as total on account of her functional disability. Consequently, no question of law, much less a substantial one, arose for consideration by the High Court so as to allow the appeal n exercise of power under ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 16 Section 30 of the Act. In our considered view, the High Court erred in partly setting aside the order of the Commissioner and assessing the disability as 40% instead of 100%, as assessed by the Commissioner."
22. In the case at hand, the disability suffered by the .
petitioner is 20% with respect to his right upper limb as well as right lower limb. Although the disability has been assessed as 20% but keeping in view the nature of profession of the petitioner, it is clear that after this disability, of he shall not be in a position to discharge his duties as driver any further. Since he was a driver by profession, his earning rt capacity has been lost. Hence, in this case although the physical disability sustained by him is 20% but the loss of earning capacity becomes total, for which the disablement for the purpose of compensation is taken as 100%.
Therefore, the learned Commissioner below has correctly assessed the disability as 100% since it will lead to 100% loss in the earning capacity of the claimant as a driver. There is no reason to disagree with the above findings of the Commissioner. Moreover, in view of the principle of law laid down in the above referred judgments, no infirmity can be found with the impugned award so far as the assessment of amount of compensation is concerned.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 17 contended that the learned Commissioner below has awarded the interest on the compensation amount only w.e.f.
03.11.2009 till the date of the announcement of the award, .
whereas the interest should have been awarded w.e.f.
03.11.2009 either till the date of the deposit of the amount or till the same was paid to the petitioner. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant deserves to be of accepted. It would be pertinent to mention here that while awarding the interest, the leaned Commissioner below has rt directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 03.11.2009, for a period of 5 years and 20 days, i.e., upto the date of announcement of the award. However, this finding of the learned Commissioner below to award the interest upto the date of the announcement of the award is incorrect, as the interest should have been awarded till the date, the compensation amount was deposited by the Insurance Company before the learned Commissioner below.
Therefore, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the petitioner is awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.8,58,720.95/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f.
03.11.2009 till the date the awarded amount was deposited ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 18 by the Insurance Company before the Court of learned Commissioner.
24. The learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant .
next contended that the learned Commissioner below erred in not awarding the amount of penalty, as envisaged under Section 4A of the Act, especially when the respondent No. 1, being the employer of the petitioner/claimant, did not pay the of amount within one month from the date of the accident, despite the fact that he was having knowledge that the rt petitioner/claimant sustained injuries in the accident, during the course of employment with him.
25. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Act, which reads as under:
"4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.-
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall-
(a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 19
(b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent. of such amount by way of penalty:
Provided that an order for the payment of penalty .
shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed."
26. In Ved Prakash Garg vs. Premi Devi, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3854, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held of that so far as the penalty amount is concerned it cannot be said that it automatically flows from the main liability incurred by the rtinsured employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner has to give a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause as to why in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty should not be imposed on him and the penalty can be levied against the defaulting employer, if it is shown that there is no justification for delay on his part in making good the compensation amount to the claimant. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is as under:
"14. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
But similar consequence will not follow in case where additional amount is added to the principal amount of compensation by way of penalty to be levied on the employer under circumstances contemplated by Section 4A(3)(b) of the Compensation Act after issuing show cause notice to the employer concerned who will have reasonable opportunity to show cause why on ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 20 account of some justification on his part for the delay in payment of the compensation amount he is not liable for this penalty. However, if ultimately the Commissioner after giving reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause takes the view that there is no justification for such delay on the part of the insured employer and .
because of his unjustified delay and due to his own personal fault he is held responsible for the delay, then the penalty would get imposed on him. That would add a further sum up to 50% on the principal amount by way of penalty to be made good by the defaulting employer. So far as his penalty amount is concerned it cannot be said that it automatically flows from the main liability incurred by the insured employer under the of Workmen's Compensation Act." ...... ...
27. Thus, before passing any order qua payment of rt penalty, a reasonable opportunity has to be given to the employer to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed on him and the penalty can be levied against the defaulting employer, if it is shown that there is no justification for delay on his part in making good the compensation amount to the claimant. In the instant case, the perusal of the award shows that the Commissioner below has not passed any order qua the payment of penalty, as envisaged under Section 4A of the Act as contended by ld. Counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, before passing any order qua the payment of penalty, if any, the Commissioner below is directed to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer by issuing a show cause notice to him in terms ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 21 of Section 4A of the Act.
28. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the substantial questions of law, in both the appeals, are .
answered accordingly and in the result, the appeal filed by Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (FAO No. 255 of 2015) is dismissed. The appeal filed by the petitioner/claimant-Mahender Kumar (FAO No. 399 of 2015) of is partly allowed to the extent that the interest on the compensation amount, which was awarded by the learned rt Commissioner below, w.e.f. 03.11.2009, till date of the announcement of the award, is now modified and the interest is awarded w.e.f. 03.11.2009 till the date of the deposit of the same before the learned Commissioner below and the case is remanded back to the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation Act, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. only with respect to the question of determination of imposing penalty, if any, with the direction to issue show cause notice to the employer-Hem Raj, in terms of Section 4A of the Act. It is made clear that the learned Commissioner below shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the employer before passing any order with respect to the determination of imposing penalty, strictly in accordance with law and ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS 22 uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court.
29. The appeals are disposed of accordingly and the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.
.
( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 28th December, 2023 (virender) of rt ::: Downloaded on - 28/12/2023 20:33:20 :::CIS