In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.5002 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:2.11.2011 National Insurance Company Limited, Rohtak .....Appellant v. Naseeb Singh and another .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Surender Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is first appeal against order of the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner') vide which the application for grant of compensation to the workman-petitioner Naseeb Singh (respondent No.1 herein) has been allowed and he has been awarded compensation to the tune of `80,176/- along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 28.12.2005 till the date of recovery. It is case of the petitioner that he was working as driver on one F.A.O. No.5002 of 2010 [2] of the fleet of Tata 407 owned by respondent No.1 (respondent No.2 herein). The tempo was used for lifting the milk from Milk Plant Gohana Road, Rohtak and he was paid `3,000/- per month as salary. On 2.1.2002 at about 11.00 p.m., the workman left for Delhi for delivering the milk and when he reached at T-point, New Barahi Road, then the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. FIR was lodged after the workman approached the higher authorities. He remained admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak and sustained extensive damage to his body and became permanently disabled being shortening of leg. He claimed compensation to the tune of `5 Lacs. After notice, respondent No.2-owner filed written statement taking up various objections. The appointment of the petitioner at the salary of `2500/- has been admitted. However, it has been stated that the petitioner having been involved in a dacoity was removed from the service. It is alleged that he was not driver on the relevant date and no accident occurred on that date and in fact the accident occurred on 9.1.2002 when respondent No.2 was himself driving the vehicle. The Insurance Company (appellant herein) also filed their separate written statement, however, on the similar lines. Pleadings of the parties resulted into framing of following issues:- “1. Whether relationship of master and servant existed between applicant with respondent No.1? 2. Whether the accident occurred out of and during the course of employment with respondent No.1? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation as claimed? F.A.O. No.5002 of 2010 [3] 4. Relief.” All these issues were decided in favour of the workman and resultantly his application was allowed. This is how the Insurance Company has come in appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. While arguing before me, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the vehicle in question was validly insured till 2.1.2002, 12.00 p.m. (midnight). It is submitted that if the workman has started from Rohtak at 11.00 p.m. he cannot reach Bahadurgarh before 12.00 and as such the accident has taken place after the expiry of the insurance policy. It is further submitted that in absence of any FIR on 2nd January, 2002 the claim is liable to be dismissed being bogus. Finally, it has been submitted that the award of interest should have been from the date of adjudication rather than from the date of the accident. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No.1-Naseeb Singh has submitted that immediately after the accident Naseeb Singh was taken to the hospital where he remained admitted and finally discharged with 20% disability on account of post-traumatic and post-operative residual partial ankylosis of right knee with right hip joint with deformity upper part right leg. The main dispute before this Court is to determine whether the accident has taken place on 2.1.2002 before 12.00 midnight or on 9.1.2002 as alleged by respondent No.2. It is case of respondent No.2 (owner of the vehicle) that the vehicle kept on coming to the Milk Plant till 14.1.2002 and as such the assertion of the respondentNo.1-workman stands vindicated. In F.A.O. No.5002 of 2010 [4] this regard AW-6 S.V. Sharma, Assistant Manager of the Milk Plant has appeared in the Court. According to him there was no entry with regard to coming or going of the vehicle in question from 3.1.2002 to 14.1.2002. This goes to show that respondent No.2 has tried to mislead the Court by saying that the accident has taken place on 9.1.2002 or that the vehicle has been coming to the Milk Plant upto 14.1.2002. On the other hand, from the statement of respondent No.1-Naseeb Singh-workman coupled with the statement of AW-2 Satbir Singh, MHC, who has proved the FIR (Ex.AW.1) further goes to prove the fact that the accident has taken place on 2.1.2002 before 12.00 midnight. Another important witness AW-3 Shiv Kumar, who has proved the admission of the injured from 3.1.2002 to 25.1.2002, clinches the issue that the workman received injuries during the night of 2.1.2002 while driving the vehicle No.HR-46A-7204 which was owned by respondent No.2 and had met with an accident. So there is no doubt in my mind that the accident has taken place during the course of employment when the workman was driving the vehicle and received injuries before the date of expiration of the insurance policy. As far as the interest on payment of compensation amount is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasi Ahmed and another, (2007) 2 SCC 349 has held as under:- “Interest is payable under Section 4-A (3) if there is default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due. The question of liability under Section 4-A was dealt with by this Court in Maghar Singh v. Jaswant Singh, 1999 (1) SCT 265 (SC):(1998) 9 SCC 134. By Amending Act 14 of 1995, Section 4-A of the Act was F.A.O. No.5002 of 2010 [5] amended, inter alia, fixing the minimum rate of interest to be simple interest @ 12%. In the instant case, the accident took place after the amendment and, therefore, the rate of 12% as fixed by the High Court cannot be faulted. But the period as fixed by it is wrong. The starting point is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due. Obviously, it cannot be the date of accident. Since no indication is there as when it becomes due, it has to be taken to be the date of adjudication of the claim. This appears to be so because Section 4-A(1) prescribes that compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The compensation becomes due on the basis of adjudication of the claim made. The adjudication under Section 4 in some cases involves the assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner. Unless adjudication is done, question of compensation becoming due does not arise. The position becomes clearer on a reading of sub-section (2) of Section 4-A. It provides that provisional payment to the extent of admitted liability has to be made when employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed. The crucial expression is “falls due”. Significantly, legislature has not used the expression “from the date of accident”. Unless there is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise.” Accordingly, the workman will be entitled to the interest from the date of adjudication of award rather from the date of the accident. F.A.O. No.5002 of 2010 [6] The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. With the above modification in the impugned award, this appeal is hereby dismissed. November 2, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*