D.Jothi Kannan Vs S.Shanthi, & Anr.

MADRAS HIGH COURT 20 Oct 2017 974 of 2005 (2017) 10 MAD CK 0002
Bench: SINGLE BENCH
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

974 of 2005

Hon'ble Bench

M.Govindaraj

Advocates

M.Govindaraj

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred
  • Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, Section 4A - Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default

Judgement Text

Translate:

1. Aggrieved by the award of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation-I, appellant/claimant has preferred the above appeal. The

grievance of the appellant/claimant is that the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation ought to have awarded interest on the award amount

after a period of 30 days from the date of accident as per Section 4-A of Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923 and not from the date of order

passed by him.

2. The issue involved in this appeal is settled by a decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs

Shrinivas Sabata and another reported in 1976 A.C.J.141, wherein, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that if the word ""falls due"" as specified

under Section 4-A of the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923, denotes the date of accident and not the date of order passed by the authority,

the claimant is entitled for interest after 30 days from the date of accident.

3. A Division Bench of this Court in N.GANESAN VS. THILAGAVATHI AND ANOTHER [2010 (2) TN MAC 80 (DB)] has also followed

the above mentioned judgment and has held as follows:

27. (i) The word ""falls due"" occurring under Section 4-A of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 in the light of the ratio laid

down in the Larger Bench decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India reported in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata

and another, 1976 (1) SCC 289 and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala, K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), means that interest for

compensation amount would accrue 30 days after the date of the accident and not from the date of quantification / orders passed by

the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation.

4. The principle is well settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the authority should have ordered interest from the date the amount falls due

(i.e) 30 days after the accident. But, in the impugned order, the authority has awarded interest, in default of deposit of award amount within a

period of 30 days from the date of order. The impugned order is contrary to the statute and the judgment of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

It literally deprives the claimants of the accrued interest provided in the statute. If the amount is deposited in time prescribed there will not be

interest at all. The spirit of the beneficial legislation in a social welfare state will be defeated by such an order.

5. Since, the issue is well settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the impugned order dated 08.04.2002 in W.C.No.187/2001 passed by the

Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation-I, Chennai, is set aside insofar as the award of interest alone. The second respondent is directed to

deposit the interest portion from the date of accrual as per Section 4-A of the Act at 12% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above direction, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Clarifies: Magistrates Can Order FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC
Nov
06
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Clarifies: Magistrates Can Order FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC
Read More
Supreme Court to Decide If NCLAT Can Refer Split Verdicts to Third Member or Must Rehear Cases with Larger Bench
Nov
06
2025

Court News

Supreme Court to Decide If NCLAT Can Refer Split Verdicts to Third Member or Must Rehear Cases with Larger Bench
Read More