Manoj K. Tiwari, J
1. This Appeal from Order has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Workmen Compensation
Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Haldwani, Nainital vide order dated 31.12.2010 passed in W.C.A. No. 35 of 2008
under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
2. This Appeal is heard on the following substantial questions of law:
“(a) Whether in the light o S.4-A (3) of Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 the interest on the awarded amount should be awarded from the
date of death of the Workman under the facts and circumstances of the present case inspite of from the date of judgment as awarded by the learned
Commissioner?
(b) Whether despite proving the monthly income of Rs. 4000/- + Rs. 50 per day food allowance, the learned Commissioner can presumed the monthly
income of the deceased as 2869/-.â€
3. Appellant is the mother of Mr. Monis, who was serving as Cleaner in a Truck owned by Mr. Furkan Ahmed. The said Truck was insured with
Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Claimant’s son Mr. Monis met with an accident arising out of and during the course of
employment and, on 16.05.2008, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. His widowed mother moved an application under the
provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act claiming Rs.4,48,000/- as compensation. In her application, she pleaded that her son was 20 years old
at the time of his death who was getting Rs.4,000/- per month as wages in addition to Rs.50/- per day as diet allowance, however, the respondents
have not paid any compensation to her after death of her son. Owner of the Truck, in his Written Statement, stated that his Truck was insured with
Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. and he was having valid documents for plying the Truck and further that Mr. Monis was his
employee. After considering the material on record, learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner assessed monthly income of the deceased as
Rs.2,869/- and determined the amount of compensation payable to the claimant as Rs.3,17,556/-with a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit
the compensation in the Court within a month, failing which, the said amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of judgment.
4. Neither the owner nor the Insurance Company has challenged the order passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner. Only the claimant has
filed Appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation determined by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 28,9 has held that claimant is
entitled to interest on the amount of compensation from the date of accident. Para 7 of the said judgment is extracted below:
“7. Section 3 of the Act deals with the employer's liability for compensation. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the employer shall be
liable to pay compensation if ""personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment."" It was not the
case of the employer that the right to compensation was taken away under sub-section (5) of section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil
court for damages, in respect of the injury, against the employer or any other person. The employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation
as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of the
employment. It is therefore futile to contend that the compensation did not fall due with after the Commissioner'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 the liability of any person to pay
compensation or as to the amount or duration of the compensation it shall, in default of an agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. There is
therefore nothing to justify the argument that the employer's liability to pay compensation under section 3, in respect of the injury, was suspended until
after the settlement contemplated by Section 19. The appellant was thus liable to pay compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was
caused to the appellant, and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary.â€
7. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Siby George & others, reported in
(2012) 12 SCC 540. Para Nos. 10 to 13 of the said judgment are extracted below:-
“10. The matter once again came up before this Court when by amendments introduced in the Act by Act 30 of 1995 the amount of compensation
and the rate of interest were increased with effect from 15-9-1995. The question arose whether the increased amount of compensation and the rate of
interest would apply also to cases in which the accident took place before 15-9-1995. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Kerala SEB v. Valsala K.,
answered the question in the negative holding, on the authority of Pratap Narain Singh Deo, that the payment of compensation fell due on the date of
the accident. In paras 1, 2 and 3 of the decision this Court observed as follows:
“1. The neat question involved in these special leave petitions is: whether the amendment of Sections 4 and 4-A of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act 30 of 1995 with effect from 15-9-1995, enhancing the amount of compensation and rate of interest, would be
attracted to cases where the claims in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident caused during the course of employment,
took place prior to 15-9-1995.
2. Various High Courts in the country, while dealing with the claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act have uniformly
taken the view that the relevant date for determining the rights and liabilities of the parties is the date of the accident.
3. A four-Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, speaking through Shinghal, J. has held that an employer becomes
liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose out of and in the course of
employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the
claim.â€
11. The Court then referred to a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi6, and approved it insofar as
it followed the decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo.
12. The decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo was by a four-Judge Bench and in Valsala K. by a three-Judge Bench of this Court. Both the decisions
were, thus, fully binding on the Court in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir, each of which was heard by two Judges. But the earlier decisions in Pratap
Narain Singh Deo4 and Valsala K. were not brought to the notice of the Court in the two later decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir.
13. In the light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K., it is not open to contend that the payment of compensation would fall due
only after the Commissioner’s order or with reference to the date on which the claim application is made. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and
Mohd. Nasir insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K. do not express the correct view
and do not make binding precedents.â€
8. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claimant is entitled to interest from the date of accident. Thus, learned
Commissioner was not justified in awarding the interest only from the date of judgment. Thus, the first substantial question of law is answered in
favour of the appellant.
9. Learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,869/- as per the minimum wage rate
fixed under Minimum Wages Act.
10. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that, at the relevant point of time, the minimum wages payable to unskilled labour was
Rs.2,869/-. In the absence of any documentary evidence to prove monthly wages of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month, learned Commissioner
rightly relied upon the wage rate fixed under Minimum Wages Act. Thus, the second substantial question of law is answered against the appellant.
11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Praveenbhai S. Khambhayata v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 41 7has
held that where an employer commits default in paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, the
Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay simple interest thereon @ 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding maximum of the lending
rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government. Para no. 15 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-
“15. The Labour Court awarded compensation of Rs 3,25,365 along with 10% penalty and 6% interest per annum. As per Section 4-A(3)(a) of the
Employees’ Compensation Act, where any employer commits default in paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the
date it fell due, the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay simple interest thereon @ 12% p.a. or at such higher rate not exceeding maximum
of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government. As per Section 4-A(3)(b), in addition to the amount of
arrears and the interest thereon, the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay further sum not exceeding 50% of such amount by way of penalty.
The legal representatives of the deceased employee are thus entitled to the statutory interest @ 12% and penalty not exceeding 50% of the amount of
compensation. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has awarded only 6% interest and 10% penalty as against the statutory
entitlement of the dependents of the deceased employee in terms of Section 4-A(3) of the Act. Having regard to the passage of time and in the
interest of justice, in our considered view, statutory rate of penalty i.e. 15% is to be ordered in addition to the statutory interest payable @ 12% p.a.â€
12. From the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner erred in granting interest only from the date of
judgment and not from the date of accident. Learned Commissioner further erred in not specifying the rate at which interest would be payable to the
claimant. In such view of the matter, the order passed by learned Commissioner deserves to be modified.
13. Accordingly, present Appeal from Order is partly allowed; the order dated 31.12.2010 passed by learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner
is modified and it is provided that the claimant shall be entitled to statutory interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident i.e. 16.05.2018.
