A" FFELLANI ~ S a s mt'. Hembi' and other Vérsus hilai Steel Pant B i udgment post for“) 47—0 J 207 d/- .Dhirendra Mishm udge \¥ S J buux r ur u-u-mTT SG Kn Ar mLAbP O NLA. .w. 39 L. “4 HIE APPELLAN‘TS _ 1. 'bmt Hembal aged about 41 years &PPLICA1‘€TS » VVa/G P Maui IxLuum 2. Dusnyant humar aged about '23 v€m\3, o] I U Ind—a lauJ LLumaxxL nw‘t- T{um :xhu Humesnwam Kumarl agedV “km” 2S year’s, u,o lat“ Hememt ) ‘ 4. Tokeshwar Kumar, aged about R5 (J‘I 1 + LT 4— TX amnv‘ Vua; 3, ‘3, \1 Laup 1Lu1nmxL 1xLu.ua.L bmt bagmbal aged about bl years, r: A IA “n111rr‘n v‘lu; ummnm Ali Rio Sunder Nagar F’O‘ Kohoka, r DlyStt Burg (C G ), FuluxmngLLt r/G Rewadih, ‘ P U Eendn, Dlstt. V VerSuS ‘ nmnnmmm’r Bhlla1 Qfpnl Plvff fhrn‘l‘lnh ‘Mfahatw v uzv; Thu h I" f‘ LJLoLL. uLus xv \J } _, Smt Meela Jaiswai counsel for the app‘el‘iant Q‘k uLuL (‘rn‘i-n ylaumlg'l LuJ.adul'1, AdJOCatv f0; u. u l€SpCEu€nt , d U U M b N 1 nh€¥nnA¥a :ah a ‘1' AbbeHants—appi’icants~1ega1 r representatives“ ‘of. the deceased workman Hemant Kumal have preferred this appeai under Section 3O of the Workmene CoinpensationrvAct, 1928 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated _l6-‘2-2004 passed bV the Cemmissioner for Workmens ' Compensation, Labour Court, Dmig'where‘bv the praver of the appeuants for bavment of balance of compensation towards the death ol Hemant humar who was worKJng as techmc1an 1n the lown bngmeermg blectmcai department ol the lespondent has D661] T616Ct€d 2 Learned counsel 101 the appellants submlfs that t s no dlspute regardlng enuuement of Ks d5 8&1] towards .COI'HUenSaUOH for U16 dEaUfl OI HEmallt Kulnal‘ WHO (116d durlng Dnrr-Inun Ir‘ 1" \ , J.\aJLLa.u\.L5aO.u ‘V u } LuauuA 5 Ull‘ectOI‘ iSDat bHawaIlL F U Billlal, > n i [J\ f7 the course 6f his empiovment under the respondents The oniv gmevemce OI tne appellants 13 that tne aCCIaent occurl ed on 1 l- o zOUZ 1n the premlses OI me respondent wnen Hemant humar cued durlng the course or ms employment, However only 30% 01 the paya‘ple compensation was deposited on 14.11.2002 and remaining amount was deposited on '7— 10—2003 and no interest was paid to the appeHants as per Section 4-A of the Act. The respondents were required to deposit the entire amount of compensation w1tnin one month Irom tne date ol acc1clent 1 e 1/ a AUOJ when 1t feii due However the amount towards compensation was nnauy deposited only on 7- 10—2003 and the Tribunal rejected the claim for interest with an observation that theN amount of compensation of Rs. 3,38,800j— has been j deposited and the same has been ordered to be disbursed. LL? U11 the otner hand learned counsel Ior the respondent bhilal bteel Plant contended that 00% oi the payabie compensation was depos1ted on 14-1 1‘200’2 and the same was disbursed by the Tribunai after foilowing due procedure. The p amount of payable compensation was finally adjudicated 19— 12— 2003 and thus from the evidence avaiiabie on record, it would be ciear that the total amount of compensation was deposited by the respondent even before the same was correctly adjudicated by the Tribunal. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the matter of llational insurance C'o. itd‘. —v— Eiubasir Ahmed and another reported in 12(367} '2'SC'C 345‘). 4. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties. D. 1116 Short QUGSUOH 111V01V6d IOI‘ adlualCaUOn OI this appeal lS U’lat I01" the DUFDOSG OI aWald OI 1111161 ES‘C unG€1 beCtlOl'l 4~Aldl When U16 COmDCllsaUOIl 1611 C1116 ‘ A 6. Section 4—A of the Act is reproduced belo/wz\/x E ‘ I, “4A. Comnensation to be paid when due and penaltv ' tor detaulul) (,ompensauon under secuon 4 snail be “pend as soon as 1t faus Que. (‘2) In cases Where the empiovér does not acceot the _ nabmtv Ior compensauon to me extent claimed he snail r x ii be bound to maKe p10v181ona1 pavment based on tne extent of nabmtv winch ne accepts and sucn payment 'shau be depoe1tedw1th the bommlsswner .or made to the workman; as the case ,n1ay be, without prejudice to the _ right of the worman to make any-fm‘ther Claim; {3) Where ianv emniover is in defauit :in paving the Compensation due under this Act Within one month nom the date 1t fell du€ U16 LOlllmlSSlOI'lel‘ Snail- ’ hfa), direct that the emplovei shah 1n additlon to the _ i ,xt, amount OI the arrears Dav Simple interest tnei eon at the late ol twelve per cent per annum or at such highef rate not exceeding the maximum of the Iending rates 01" any scheduied bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the OfflCia‘l Gazette, on the amountadue; and f6} if in his opinion there is no justification for the - delay, dnect that the employer shah 1n addinon to ’1 7 , A the amount of the an ears and Interest hereon pav a ‘ further sum not exceedlng Intv per cent of such amount DV wav of penalty " t 7 whue intei pietmg the stipulation occun mg 1n Section 4— A(d) of the Act "Whele anv employer 1s 1n default in pavlng the 'V t r l ‘ " l ' ‘ I f compensation due under tms Act Wltmn one month Irom the i ‘ V ‘ date 1t tell due” the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 9 of the ? x 3 ' 1udgment in Mubasir Ahmed (supra) has held thus - “9. Interest is pa’vabk under Section 4-Aw) 11 tnele ls default 111 paving the compensation due under tms Act ‘ ‘ Wltnm one month 1mm the date 1t IeH due. The question of t h Maghar liahiiity under’section Sinqh —v— Jnshwant 4—A was Sinqh deait [i998i‘9 with by SCC this 1o4) Court EV in amenalng Act .30 ol 199D becuon 4 A of the Act was amended 1nter aha, IJXIng the lnlnlmum rate of interest to be simple interest @ 12% In the instant case the accident tooK place alter the amendment and theretore the late of ‘ 2% as Iixeci DV the High Lourt cannot be taunted hut the r peiioa as nxed by 1t 1s wrong. ihe starting point is on completion of one month from the date on which it feii due. Obviousiy it cannot be the date of accident. Since no ‘ indication is there as to when it becomes due it has to be taken to De the date of ad1ud1cat10n ol the claim This appears to be so because becuon 4 AU) prescribes that ‘ j ‘ ’ COIDDEHSatlOH Under SGCUOD 4 Shall D6 Dald aS SOOH aS 1t ‘ tails due the compensation becomes due on the bas1s ol ‘I , ~ adjudicatlon ol the claim made. the adjudication under u Section (Lin some cases involves the assessment of loss of ‘ earning canacitV bV a qualified medical practitioner y v / Unless adjudication is done question oi compensation becoming due does not arise ihe pos1tion becomes cleai er on a reading oi sub section (a) of Section 4 A it pi OVides E x ‘ that prov1s10nai pavment to the extent of admitted habihtV has to be made when empiover does not accept the habilitv tor compensation to the extent claim ihe cruCial i i - used expressmn the expi is "Iaiis essmn due” “from Significantly, the date of legislature acc1dentf has Unless not i , there is an adjudication the question of an amount falling due does not arise " 2 , i K i , t '. _ 8. I j The , claimants i in the ' Cited case were claJminé iE COBlDenSatlOn tOWEI'CIS the mlm‘IES sustained DV U1€D1 Clul‘mg } ( ‘ - ‘ \ i g i . a x ‘ i l i ; x i t. Y «WWW WW l ‘ the course of empioymant and in these circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court heid that adjudication under Section 4 in .some cases invoives the assessment of loss of earning capacity 1 by a quaiifled medical practitioner and, therefore, unless the adjudication is done, question of compensation becoming due does not arise. The cruciai expression “fails due” has been held to be the date on which, the claim is adjudicated. 9. in the matters of Fratap Narajn Singh Dec —v- Srinivas Sabataiand another reported in i§76 iii SC'C 28g, a bench of four Hon’ble judges of Supreme Court, while interpreting Section 4-Ai3) of the Act, has held in paras 6, ‘7 and 8 thus:— “(Q It has next been argued that the Commissioner committed a serious error of law in imposing a penalty on the appellant under Section 4N3) of the Act as the compensation had not fallen due until it was ‘settledi by i ' .the Commissioner under Section 19 by his impugned order dated May 6, 1969. There is however no force in this argument. 7. Section 3 of the Act deals with the employeris liability for compensation. Sub—section (l) of that section provides that the employer shall be liable to pay compensation if “personal inmrv is caused to a workman by accident arising out OI and 1n 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 'ijhstitution of a suit in a civil court for damages in respect of the iniurv, against‘the employer or any other person lne employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the a101 esaid personal iniury was caused to the worKman :ov the acc1dent which admittedly arose out oi and m the t course of the employment It is therefore futile to contend w_ ( f l “ 7i that the Cgmpensation did not faii due untii after the Commiesibvnerh 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 iiabiiity‘of any person to pay compensation or as to the amount of duration of the compensation it shaft, in defauit of agreement, be settied by the Commissioner. There is therefore nothing to‘ justify the argument that the empioyer’s liability to pay compensation under-Section 3, in respect of the injury, was suspended until after the settiement contemplated by Section 19. The appellant was thus liable to pay compensation as sopn as the aforesaid ' personal injury was caused to the appellant, and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary. 8. / It was the duty of the‘appellant, under Section 4A( l) of the Act to pay the compensation at the rate provided by 1 Section 4 as soon as the personal m1urV was caused to the . respondent He failed to do so What 1s w01 se he cud not even make a prov181ona1 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 a 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 the compensation. It will be recalled that the ‘ TCSDOIld€11t was d11V6n t0 T116 116C€SSIIV OI 111mg an apDllcaUOn t0 me LOlDmlSSIOnelLiOI‘ settling tile Claim 811(1 6V611 tl'ICI‘é U16 appellant raised a II‘lVOiOLlS OD]€CUOI1 &S t0 v i the 1ur1sdiction oi the Commisswner and prevailed on the respondent to file a memorandum oi agreement settling s tne‘claim for a sum which was so g1 osslv Inadequate that » 1t was re1ected by the Lomnnssmner In these facts and Circumstances we have no doubt that the Commlss1dner “cmo , ’ a x . was fuiiy justiiiéd in making an order for the payment of in'terest and the penalty.” 10. in the matter of Keraia State ‘Eiect'ricit'v Board. and another —v- Vaisaia K. and another reverted in I1§§91 8 $CC 254, a beiich of three Hon’hie Judges 0f the Hon’hle Supreme Court relving upon the iudgm e111: of Fraiap N’ararin Sinai: Dec (supra), have he‘ld in para 3 and 4 thus:- “3. A four-Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Sinqh Deo —v- Srinivas S‘abata (1976)] SCC 28? speaking through Shjnghai, J has heid that an empioyer becomes liabie to pay compensation as soon as the personal Injury is caused to the workman by the accident which arose out K of and in the course of empioyment. Thus, the reievant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the ' \ claim‘ 4. A two-Judge Bench of this 'Court in New fmiia Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vii i‘feeiakandan {GAS Nest i6904-09 of 1996 decided on 6-11-19§6j, however, took the View that the WorlnnelYs Compensation Act being a speciai legislation for the benefit of the workmen, the benefit as avaiiable on the date of,adiudication shouid be extended to the workmen and not the compensation which was pavable on the date of the accident. The two— Judge Bench in Neeiakandan case however, did not take notice of the judgment of thea‘darger Bench in Pratap Narain Sinqh Deo case as it presumahlv was not brought to the notice ol their Lomsnips Be that as it mav, 1n v1ew of the categorical law laid clown Dv the larger Bench in é Hump blnqn Ueo case the Vlew expressed UV the two— \ Judge BCHCH 111 NeeéaicandaH case 1S 11012 COI‘I‘CCT. 1 ) ) \ 11‘ The above View ha‘s been further relteratea m the matter 01 Onental insurance Co. Ltd. —v- Khaiuni Eevi and others leported 111 MW2l 10 bCC 507 1’2. Even ‘otherwise, in the instant case, from perusai of the evidence available on record it is evident that the incident ’ occurred on 1'/ “ 2002 the respondent employer deposuted the cheque of Rs 1 b 440/- as compensation Ior the death of deceased on 14—11 2002 along With dulv fined Ionn “A” which eveals the date of acc1dent resuitlng 1n death OI the deceased ms monthlv wages lhe inbunm Vide older dated 125 2 ZUOD sewed the respondent With a notice to show cause as to whv the interest and penalty should not be imposed for not deposmng ‘ the compensation in accordance With the prOViSions ol the Act and thereafter on I iO 2003 another cheque of Rs 1 b9 440/— has been depos1ted by the einpiover In repiV dated 9 4 4003 to the application ol the workman it has been stated that the claimant was not entitled Ior Ks d d8 2580/ as per amended beCtlOn 4 OI the WOI‘KmCl'lS (/OmDenSatlOH Act DECa'LISC 110 nomication appears to have been issued givmg effect to the amended Section 4 fi‘oniS—lQ—QOOD. Thus from the documents o i l I available on record, l am of the considered opinion that there was no dispute Which required adjudication and the ' f respondent eniplovei‘ ought to have deposned the Whole amount Of COHIDCnSaUOH Wlthln 0116 Illontn II'Om U16 date 0f aCCldEHt J. /‘ ‘ l ‘ fl 3 g} t o z002 as per the prOViSion of section 4 01 the Act 3 Cu I Placmg reliance upon the judgments oi the bupreine Court " § ‘ in ?ratap Naram Sin ibupra) Keraia state Electriéitv § «‘ 4 . V Board (supra) andR Knaiuni Devi and others (supra) case i am 3 .. 3i l. of the cons1dered opinion that the Tribunal was notgustiiied in not awarding the intei est as per Section 4AM of the Act even: x l ‘ alter ISSUIHE SHOW GauSe HOUC€ t0 U16 T€SDODCI€11tS 1H U’llSf regard No reason has been assigned for not awarding the‘ I A y g‘ t \ O interest to the - appellant. in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal'ought to Rhave awarded. statutory interest as appiicabie under Section 4A of the Act at the ratezof 12% per annum. it was the dutv of the respondents to deposit compensation at the rate as provided under Section 4 as per Scheduie Within one month of the accident However 50% of the amount against compensation was deposited on 14—11- .200‘2 and rest of the amount was deposited on 7— 10‘2003. In these CiICunlstances, the’appeiiant was entitled for interest on the whole amount at the rate of 12% from the date of accident i.e. 17—5—2002 to l4— l 1-2002 and thereafter further 12% interest on the remaining amount of Rs. 1,69,440f— up ”to 7- lO- ZUUS. \ l4. Accordinglv, the appeal is allowed. The respondent is ~ directed? to paV to the appellants interest @ 12% per annum on the whole amOunt of Rs. 3,38,880j— from l7-5—20U2 to 14—11— \ 2002 and further interest @l‘2% per .annum on the remaining amount. of Rs. l,6§,440]- for the period from 15;.“2002 to Sdl- .,-/\‘\ \_ :Dhirendra Mishra . Judge#i \\ ~ 137—2007 V 7- 10—2003 within a month. r