United India Insurance Co., Ltd., vs Sri Shivappa S/O Ramappa Harijana on 26 September, 2011

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

United India Insurance Co., Ltd., vs Sri Shivappa S/O Ramappa Harijana on 26 September, 2011

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

condoned the delay in tiling the claim petitions and allowed,-the

claim petitions by awarding compensation at ?.76,248/- iI1"_Vfu£'1'x'.(_.)'4llVIfx7._

the claimant in WCA:CWC~2:NF:120/2003 and ?.CZ:'§',55A9:l}"Tii1 '

favour of the claimant in WCA:CWC-2:NF:'121/2GQ5iiiyith  

at 12% per annum after 30 days from    acclidentitilllﬂ7.A

the date of deposit.

3. Learned Counse_l"'i7o1' the _aip'pe._ll.an't_contends" that the
Commissioner was not rightVVin"awardlin:g  12% pa. after
thirty days from  oflthei aC'cid'e'ntti.liietahejdate of the deposit.

Secondly, it contended »thatA'.':the 'C.omrnissio1ier should not have

awardedviany liinterest  .th*e..'_'belatedwperiod in filing the claim

petitions. 

V'  p V-i.o.,w'4.?..AS.ection 4--l,lAiVof"tihe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923

 _('iActu" for.sho19t)a.pr~ovides for payment of compensation when due

and._penalt.y. for default. The said provision is as under:

af;"Secti0Iz 4-A: Compensation to be paid when due and
penalty for default:
(1) Compensation under Section--4 shall be paid as

soon as it falls due.



(2) In cases where the employer does not accept._the""--iii" ii

liability for compensation to the extent claimed,  

shall be bound to make provisionalmpayment"based on, '

the extent of liability which he, accepts,, 

payment shall be deposited with th'e__C'o.rninissivQner or if i

made to the workman, as th_e*»c_ase may be,  

prejudice to the right of the____\30orkmyan to make any

further claim.

(3) Where .,1;§'yv.,¢ni;;._15y¢:5i,s rijniiipaying the
compehnsa--tion€dL_;e   one month
from   fell  i"C'on1ii§iissioner shall-
(ji)Hdiirectifthatiithe ei'np:loyeri._ishalil, in addition to the
 afnt)u11t:of:'the  pay simple interest thereon

at the rate ofietwelye. percent per annum or at such

' ' iyhigher-. rateinot exceeding the maximum of the

1.

"-.len--ding any scheduled Bank as may be by the Central Government, by if 'li\il'_ot;ifi:<.:iatiio11 in the Official Gazette, on the amount and ii(p'o)__ii1f, 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 percent of such amount by way of peﬁilty."

5. The expression 'fell due' contained in suh~section (3)of Section 4-A came up for consideration by the Bench of Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court in PRATAP NARA!-1§HSIi'§IGr1 _ DEO VS. SRINIVAS SABATA & ANOTHER --:("I'9=7i$:}_~ j"~sCC 289, wherein it has been held under:

"Section 3 of the Act dealsii"'«7,y:itl1,V_theeniployeris liability for compensa'ti_o11._'iiSub--section--_( 1) of that Section provides that the.'ernployer__shall=.he'_V__liahle to pay compensation '«inj--uryii-is:.iic'aused to a workman. the course of the case of the ei:np'1l6ye:{}:hariiigie to conipensatioii was taken axwiy under o1'.Section 3 because of the institution of infaiicivil Court for damages, in Ere-sppect thei1'1'1jluryi§' itgainst the employer or any other lper,_sson.'vr.The einployer therefore became liable to pay ..V[he,_C()ffIP#f1Sa[iO11 as soon the aforesaid personal to the workman by the accident, which -adiruttedly arose out of and in the course of the ei*np_loy1nerit. It is therefore futile to contend that the ii'.""fJO11lpCnSallOl1 did not fall due until after the "iCommissioner'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 it s.

'heldas uh'der:"

the liability of any person to pay compensation or as to C the amount or duration of the compensation, it sha].l.,._in ' ~ V default of agreement, be settled by the Co1nmis:§i_oner,,,V: ii There is therefore nothing to justify...the arg_uine'iit=t_h.at'"' the employer's liability to pay :c_omnensatiQ1i1.under~0.,__ Section 3, in respect of the ignjtiry, was iS'LlSp€ndt3Cl until' after the settlement contempmtledtgby appellant was thus liable to p_ayi:'cvornp.eg1isationas as the aforesaid 'i_njtipryi. 'w.a.<;._ 'caused to the appellant, and there isﬂnoljusti.fic:itio'ri.ft)'rfthearguineiit to the contrai'y_p."'j.

:;,ELEC:TI§'IiC1'TY,,Bf)ARD & ANOTHER vs. VALSAZL/LK.' (1999) 8 SCC 254 a judgment rendered by.,a'Bench._of*«three'*lrlonlble Judges, the Apex Court after considering PRA'-T/lP'iNAlRAlN SINGH DL'0's case (supra), has V High Courts in the country, while deai:ing with the claim for compensation under it '*-._&Wo1'l<1nen's Compensation Act have unil'ormly taken the View that the relevant date for determining the rights and liabilities of the parties is the date of the accident.

A four--Judges Bench of this Court in PRAY'/iP NARAIN SINGH DEO VS. SRINIVAS SABATA speaking through Shinghal, J., has held that ii employer becomes liable to pay compensation assoori as the personal injury is caused to the WOI'l(lT.1.?.El. . accident which arose out of and inlthe 7c<)urs«r:_."c«f employment. Thus, the relevant date fo--r_ deteriI'ana*ti,on of the rate of COII1p€l1SZillOIll_S.'ih.€ date*- of the accitilent. and not the date of €l(ljLlCllC21[l()1lll'.(32 claim; ._ l I A two-Judges 4' .. in NEW INDIA A'S'S_URA;1'VCE*l':: ..{:77b. vs. vK.iw'E51;}tI<j§Ni_)rtz§?t.hdty?év¢tj too'1§iith'e"view that the being a special legislationiifoijtlige'beriegfi-t Ofil.ll€"Vi}Orklh€11, the benefit or adjudication should be extendedwto the"'w'ork"rn.eni and not the compensation 5w.hich wias,iplay'able- the date of the accident. The V-i.__.'ltw_o;Jutlge Bencirin Neelakandan case, however, did .,not t'atl<e,n"ot.i_ce of the Judgment of the larger Bench in .__«Prata'pv.Nai;a'i'i1 Singh Deo case as it presumably was not bro-vu'ght}'to the notice of their Lordships. Be that as it may'; in View of the categorical law laid down by the V "--._la1'ger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo case, the liiview expressed by the two»Judge Bench in Neelakandan case is not correct.

it Our attention has also been drawn to a Judgment of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Cou4r.t.jlt~-11. in United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. Alavi whe~reilnx.'__l_ V the Full Bench precisely considered the same question..: l and examined both the above noted»judgmei:itsilt' the View that the injured w<>1'kman'».bec:o1n.es to"

get compensation the moment siiffers ij.ei*Lsonal injuries of the types COI1t€mpl8et:€iCi'~by the Workmen's Compensation----Auctvandit is the'amoL:'ht of compensation pay'abllie_()i:_gt/1%.; vv4]Zi'i4<égtv».0f';1ze accident and not I/16'AV'(1I7'10l{I1I__ V.g()ri1j)e(z.s'£tii(l;'1.:'/przigrrable on accozmr of 'fi','If3'Edi')?€i=1.(/I'?§€}'l.§': I7'1'(1i(i1e.:_'z'.-viz. , which is relextan§t."l'ilheVdeeisioii-:_o.f l:t"n.e_Full;._l3€jI1Ch 0f U16 KGYE18 High__jgCo*urlt',' to:v__the._extei1t" accord with the _lLl'tlg1T1'Cl1KA[AVtail?V[ht3vl'lafg€l;"'B§ﬂCh' of this Court in Pratap Sabata lays down the correct law-and -welapprove it."

i * -. _V 7..VIn«theV:a~fo_resaid decisions, the Apex Court interpreted the expression"i7'fe_ll";due" contained in subsections (1) and (3) of . Section 4i~VA tiiiat the amount of compensation becomes due on the .,:exp:7.r_y ofvone month from the date of the accident and if the same is _l 1i:)t"deposited, interest becomes payable after the expiry of one i " qrionth from the date of the workman sustaining injuries due to an t ll LIMITED & ANOTHER -- AIR 1980 KARNA TAKA;'_""92-,5 Court has held that the ratio of law laid down ofl PRATAP NARAIN SINGH 0503 case t[§upr;:')' 'nastto be f_oi.1o-wedlpp as it was rendered by a quorum of more than two Honfble Ju'~dgesi.'~~.p 2' It has been further held that in th¢.,j§v'ent the question of law in two decisions, wl1ii'e considei'i1ig t'he'vqt1estion of law on the point, this course of action as has b%1i:i.:1;"»l_tl Tn Govindanaik G.Ka1aghatigi'€s"casehereforéithereillis no merit in the contention~of.the'*vl5earhe:dv.C?<>uiis:el appellaiit that in the case of inju1'ytV\'v.é,T_1te'1"es'ir paid from the date of the claim petitions tillTtheidateliofthe' sapward and 12% per annum from the date olgptheiiaward ti'l'l~the___date of deposit. The judgment and award irnpu»gnedvhei'ein;*-- therefore, does not call for interference in so far i'Rle1'est at 12% per annum after 30 days from the _ date of the.VAac'ci'dent.

.9. In so far as the second contention is concerned, the 'Commissioner had rejected the claim petitions on 28.2.2005. This Court allowed the appeals challenging the said awards filed by the claimants on 20.8.2007. The matters were remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with liberty to the claimants to file the applications seeking condorrat'i'o_n of delay in filing the claim petitions. Accordingly," 'the:cvlali'mants have filed the applications seeking C()I1(lOil1<'i[lQ.I'lO.f' de=1,ay;..l 9 l0. Sub-section (l) of gtatesll for compensation shall be at; (i',ion<1i'n,is"siogne1' unless notice of the accident has been given the as soon as practicable afterfitheithapperiing 'a.n'd-unless the claim is preferred before the occurrence of the years from the date of the death. of Section 10 states that the Commi_ssioner"ma"y ent;erta.i_nland decide any claim to compensation anyl'i~ca_sce 11r3twithst'ari--dii1g that the notice has not been given or the claim-has notlbeen preferred in due time as provided in the said sub-section, 'l'f:i1€':;lS satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or prefer theclaiin, as the case may be, was due to sufficient cause. ll. The accident had occurred on 25.12.1999. The claimants "ought to have filed the application seeking compensation within 13 two years from the date of the occurrence of the there was 21 delay, they filed the applications .c::<':)'1~1Vd<?m:z1ti.on ll of delay in filing the claim petitions, wAhicb,.wé.silallowed 1' Commissioner. The appellant should 11otXt_)e"

interest for the delayed period pet1ti()11s. Therefore, the Comnnissioner"$.ho11--lld iiwgirded interest from 25.12.2001 1111 the d;1.t.e:._of ll.llIlg ";51i..lt1i§:,p,--«1§'1ai1n petitions, namely-0 l2V.__ I the foll()wing_: T .

"5_ic§byR The appeals ziredismissed. However, the claimants are in hmenti1led.fo1':i11.I;erest from 25.12.2001 1111 14.8.2003.

Tl1.e'~;iinount in deposit shall be transferred to the . Com1i'1issi--one1'lf()r Workmen's Compensation, Bijapur, forthwith.

'' «No costs.

sd/-

JUDGE BMM/~

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court