Gujarat High Court
Ahmed Harun Gori vs Abbas Ibrahim Kara And Anr. on 24 December, 1992
Equivalent citations: II(1994)ACC651
JUDGMENT K.G. Shah, J.
1. Admit. Mr. J.R. Nanavati, learned Advocate for the respondents, waives service. At the joint request of the learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of.
2. The appellant, while he was in the service of respondents, sustained employment injury. He, therefore, made an application for claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 29,400/-, under Workmen's Compensation Act, before the learned Commissioner at Jamnagar. The claim petition was then returned to the claimant-appellant for being presented before the learned Commissioner at Baroda. Accordingly, the appellant presented the claim petition before the learned Commissioner at Baroda. Some time in December, 1985, the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, at Baroda, once again returned the claim petition for being presented before the Commissioner at Jamnagar. Accordingly, the matter was entertained by the Commissioner at Jamnagar, who has ultimately, on the merits of the case, passed an award in the sum of Rs. 5,880/- by way of compensation and Rs. 2,940/- by way of penalty, and also awarded interest to the appellant at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the aforesaid two amounts from January 1,1986, till realisation. The Commissioner left the parties to bear their own costs.
3. The accident happened on June 27, 1982.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award, the original claimant has preferred this appeal.
5. Mr. Soni, learned Advocate for the appellant, firstly, contended that the award for compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,880/- is grossly inadequate, and on the, evidence led by the appellant, the award for compensation as claimed by the claimant should have been passed. That submission of Mr. Soni is required to be stated merely for being rejected. The medical evidence adduced by the appellant shows that he has been left with 20 per cent disablement. The Commissioner has accepted that evidence led by the appellant and has worked out the compensation on that basis. Taking the income of the appellant as averred by him, there is, therefore, no illegality committed by the Commissioner in working out the amount of compensation payable to the appellant.
6. Mr. Soni, nextly, made a very serious grievance of the fact that the accident occurred on June 27, 1982 and, therefore, interest on the award amount should have been given to the appellant from that date, and not from 1.1.1986, as has been done by the Commissioner. I think, Mr. Soni is on a very sound footing on this grievance of his. It appears that the learned Commissioner has taken the date 1.1.1986 as the date from which interest should be allowed to the claimant for the simple reason that finally after the rounds of transfer and re-transfer, the claim petition came to him towards the end of December, 1985, or towards the first week of January, 1986. As stated earlier, the original claim petition was filed within the period of limitation before the Commissioner at Jamnagar. It was then transferred to Baroda, and once again it came to be transferred to Jamnagar. This transfer and re-transfer business took about 3 1/2 years. The appellant had initially approached the Commissioner at Jamnagar and ultimately that Commissioner is found to have jurisdiction in the matter. Therefore, the appellant cannot be faulted in initially having approached the Commissioner at Jamnagar, and he has been quite illegally and unauthorisedly deprived of the benefit of interest, right from the date of the accident. The scheme of Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act would show that the amount of compensation in the case of an employment injury would be due to the claimant, in a case like this, on the date the accident occurred, and by virtue of Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the employers were under a duty, either to pay the amount of compensation or to deposit the same within one month from the date it fell due. Thus, the intent of the legislature is that the injured workman should get the amount of compensation almost immediately after the amount of compensation falls due to him. If the employer commits default in payment of the compensation within one month, he is liable to be saddled with penalty and interest. Thus, the right to claim compensation arises immediately on occurring of the accident. If the compensation is not paid when it has fallen due, looking to the scheme of Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the claimant would be entitled to get interest from the date the compensation has become due. In the present case, the accident occurred on June 27, 1982. Compensation should have been paid by the employers to him latest within one month from that date. That having not been done, the employers would also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum right from the date the amount of compensation has become due. The learned Commissioner has, without assigning any reason, deprived the appellant of interest for about VA years, for no fault of the appellant. He approached the correct forum within the prescribed period of limitation. It was his misfortune that his application was tossed from the Commissioner at Jamnagar to the Commissioner at Baroda, and once again from the, Commissioner at Baroda to the Commissioner at Jamnagar. The learned Commissioner has not given any reason why the appellant should have been deprived of the interest for the period between the date of the accident and 1.1.1986.
7. Mr. Soni, the learned Advocate for the appellant, relied upon the decision in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata 1976 A.C.J. 141 (S.C.). In para 8 of that judgment, the Supreme Court has said as follows:
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 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 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 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.
The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court would clearly go to show that it was the duty of the respondents in the present case to pay the amount of compensation to the appellant as soon as the appellant sustained injury. That having not been done, the appellant would obviously be entitled to interest on the amount awarded in his favour at the rate of 6 per cent per annum right from the date of the accident. To that extent, the appeal should succeed.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Commissioner is modified so as to read the date '27.6.1982' in place of the date '1.1.1986', where it occurs in the final operative order. In the facts' and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs of this appeal.
The respondents are directed to make payment of the amount as per the modified award within six weeks from now. If, however, the appellant has been paid the amount of the award as passed by the Commissioner, the respondents shall pay the difference payable to the appellant pursuant to the modification of the award by this Court, within six weeks from now.