Gujarat High Court
Babulal Parmar Deceased Thro Heirs ... vs Deputy Executive Engineer on 31 July, 2018
Author: S.G. Shah
Bench: S.G. Shah
C/FA/3699/2008 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3699 of 2008
==========================================================
BABULAL PARMAR DECEASED THRO HEIRS KUNVARBEN B PARMAR
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PANKAJ R DESAI(3120) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH
Date : 31/07/2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pankaj R. Desai for the appellants and learned AGP Mr. Soham Joshi for respondents.
2. Perused the record. The appellants are original claimants in Workman Compensation (Fatal) Claim No.112 of 1998 before the Labour Court and Commissioner under Workman's Compensation Act of Jamnagar. They have claimed compensation for accidental death of one Babulal Purvadas Parmar, when he was on duty with Truck No. GTP 7561 owned by the opponents. Since he was in service of the opponents and getting Rs.2000/- as monthly income and since he was 45 years of age, considering the relevant statute the Commissioner has awarded an amount of Rs.1,69,440/-. However, though the Commissioner has awarded such amount with Page 1 of 5 C/FA/3699/2008 ORDER 12% interest, the Commissioner has awarded the interest only with a condition that if opponent do not deposit the awarded amount within one month from the date of award i.e. 08.05.2008 then they are liable to pay 12% interest on such amount. Therefore, claimants have lost the benefit of interest from the 13.11.1998 till 08.06.2008 i.e. almost for decades.
3. Therefore, appellant has challenged such award, so as to modify it by awarding the interest from the date of accident.
4. Though liability to pay interest is statutory and that there is no role of the claimant to delay the proceedings in such compensation cases, because generally they are in barely need of an amount of compensation after the death of earning number of family, the Commissioner has failed to realize that payment of interest from the date of accident is a statutory requirement and it cannot be let go and that too without assigning any cogent reasons. In such cases, practically employers are suppose to pay compensation as soon as accident took-place and in absence of payment when it is due, practically the Commissioner is empowered to even impose penalty upon employer. Unfortunately, the Commissioner has failed to award any penalty and interest is awarded only if opponents failed to make payment within a month after an award which was passed after a decade.
5. It seems that the Commissioner has guided by the fact that Page 2 of 5 C/FA/3699/2008 ORDER opponents are State authorities and vehicle which is involved in the accident was not insured and thereby amount of compensation is to be paid by the State. However, it cannot change the legal position and it is quite clear and obvious that the State is nothing but a common and equal litigant like other litigants before the Court and, therefore, if order of penalty and interest is passed against private litigant, there is nothing in law which prevent to pass such order against State authorities also.
6. The Combined and cogent reading of Section 3, 4 and 4A of the Workmans' Compensation Act makes it clear that the workman or his legal representatives are entitled to compensation as soon as injury or death is caused to a workman by accident, arising out of or in the course of his employment and non payment of compensation as soon as it falls due, employer is liable to pay interest and penalty. Unfortunately, the Commissioner has failed to appreciate the provisions of Sub - Section (2) of Section 4A of the Workmans' Compensation Act, which makes it clear that in case, where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extend claimed, there shall be option to make provisional payment based on extent of liability which he accepts. Such payment may be deposited to the Commissioner or to the workman as the case may be without prejudice to the rights of the workman to make any further claim. The commissioner has also failed to realize that, in fact, even rate of interest has been separately Page 3 of 5 C/FA/3699/2008 ORDER provided which was though 6% before 1995, 12% thereafter.
7. Though law applicable to such cases are quite clear, unfortunately the opponents are relying upon some judgments and, therefore, I have no option but to deal with them.
8. Respondents are relying upon the following decisions; (1) Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Satnam Singh reported in (2011) 14 SCC 758 and (2) United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Shakura Ishaqu Bhaya & Anr. reported in (2008) 1 GLR 327, submitting that liability to pay interest starts after one month from which compensation falls due and thereby the Commissioner has not committed any error, when amount of compensation has been decided by the impugned award only.
9. However, respondents have failed to appreciate that such trace judgment would not be considered as settled legal position and that too by the division bench either of the High court or the Honourable Supreme Court when there are several decisions by the larger bench and the division bench of the Honourable Supreme Court confirming that interest is payable from the date of accident till its realization. To specify such settled legal position reference of following judgments are relevant; (1) Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata & Anr. reported in AIR 1976 SC 222 (2) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Siby George & Anr. reported in AIR 2012 SC 3144 Page 4 of 5 C/FA/3699/2008 ORDER (3) Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 298 (4) Yaya Viswal & Ors. vs. Branch Manager, IFFCO TOKIYO General Insurance Company Ltd. reported in AIR 2016 SC 956 (5) Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Valsala K. & Anr. reported in 1999 (8) SCC 254
10. Thereby, considering the decision in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Shetti reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 by the full bench of the Honourable Supreme Court, we have to rely upon the judgment of larger bench, which is in case of Pratap Narain (supra) and Valsala (supra) ignoring decision by smaller benches and that too when it is traced, so also decision by the High Court.
11. In view of above facts and circumstances and settled legal position, appeal is partly allowed. It is now made clear that claimants are entitled to interest on amount of compensation from the date of accident being 13.11.1998 at the rate of 12% as awarded by the commissioner. The respondents shall pay such interest within 10 weeks. Record an proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court, at the earliest.
(S.G. SHAH, J) DRASHTI K. SHUKLA Page 5 of 5