Kerala High Court
Gopinath vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 15 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: II(2000)ACC229, 2000ACJ1250, [2000(85)FLR504], (2000)IILLJ80KER
JUDGMENT K.K. Usha, J.
1. This is an appeal at the instance of the applicant in W.C.C. 64/89 before the Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kottayam. Two points are mainly raised in this appeal. Firstly, it is contended that the Commissioner has committed an error in not granting compensation assessing appellant's disability at 100%. Secondly, according to the appellant, the Commissioner should have directed payment of interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the accident till realisation.
2. The applicant was a driver. On June 12, 1986, during the course of his employment, he met with an accident and sustained a crush injury on his right forearm and fracture of both bones of his right forearm. Ext. A1 medical certificate issued by a medical officer was to the effect that the applicant had suffered 21.5% permanent disability. According to the appellant, in the nature of his employment, namely, as a driver, the above-mentioned disability will cause cent percent disability to do the work.
3. We find no merit in the above contention, in view of the fact that appellant's driving licence had been renewed after the accident upto August 4, 1988. A person who has thus got his driving licence renewed after the accident cannot contend that he is totally disabled to do the work of a driver.
4. But, we find merit in the second contention raised by the appellant. Relevant provision regarding payment of interest as it stood before the amendment in the year 1995 was as follows:
Section 4-A(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 may direct that in addition to the amount of arrears, simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the amount due together with, if in the opinion of the Commissioner there is no justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty.
5. A Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the scope of the above provision in the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Nazar, ILR 1997(1) Kerala 496. This Court took the view that compensation becomes due on the date of the accident itself. One month's time is granted to the employer to satisfy the claim of the workman. Any delay in making payment beyond the time granted by the Statute would make the employer liable to compensate the employee by paying interest. It is, therefore, the right of the workman to get interest on the amount of compensation for the period in which it was not made available to him by the employer. Liability to pay interest will run from the date on which the right to receive compensation accrued in favour of the workman, namely, the date of the accident and not when the orders are issued by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. A Full Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, (1998-II-LLJ-896) (Ker-FB), while considering the retrospective effect of amendment brought under Act 80 of 1995, has taken the view that the right of the injured employee or his heirs to receive compensation gets crystallised the moment the personal injury takes place. This view has been subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. Valsala, (1999-II-LLJ-1112) (SC). The Apex Court has held that while computing amount of compensation under Workmen's Compensation, it is the date of the accident which is relevant. Thus, it is clear that under Sub-section (3) reference to "the date it fell due" is to the date of the accident and not the date of the order of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under which employer is found liable and his liability is quantified. Therefore, the direction given by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to pay interest at the rate of 6% only on default of depositing the amount within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, is erroneous. The appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the accident, namely, June 12, 1986. We modify the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation as above .
6. The appeal stands partly allowed.