O‘SRT': :FEE rm ‘N Iva/ éx" l IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G) ‘i% MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 2005 Bivi33an Bench " .l n Lauwuua.»mMumWm. man-Away» we; a.“ w was,“ .m... . L m JC , a A \O/ APPELLANTS (1) Champa bai Wd/o Chandu lal Sahu CLAIMANTS // Aged about 40 years, (2) Nand Kumar S/o Chandu la! Sahu f Aged about 20- years. (3) Ku. Pramila Bai D/o Chandu lal Sahu f Aged about 18 years, (4) Ku Sangita Bai D/o Chandu lal Sahu J Aged about 16 years. (5) Dushyant S/o Chandu lal Sahu w/ Aged about 14 years, «A ”x2; (6) Rambharos, S/d Govind Sahu / Aged about 65’years, F 7) Tirath Bai W/o Rambharos Aged about 60 years, Applicant No.4 & 5 are represented by legal guardian Mother Champa Bai Wd/o Chandu lal Sahu, All are R/o Village — Kurra,'P.O — Bangoli, Tah & Distt— Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (1)_ Kailash Chand Agrawal S/o Durga « NON—APPELLANTS g, ‘prasad Agrawal, Through: Jagjeet Singh S/o Pratap Singh Bhatia ,R/o Village & Post— Kharora, Tah & Distt — Raipur (C.G.) (2) The Oriental Insrurance Company Through: Divisional f‘;Limited, DMSIon No.2, Chawla Complex, Manager, Sal nagar, Devendra Nagar, Road, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (3) JagJlt Singh Bhatia S/o Pratap Singh / 9 Bhatia R/o Village Kharora Post Kharora, Behind Dena Bank District i a Raipur (C G ) l HEGH CG 'R’i‘ GF CHEATTISGARH 'i‘ BILASF'JR i‘viiSC“LLA‘i€E\’5US AF?E§§L K6. 973 OF 2GG5 Champa Bai and o‘Lhel's. Vewus Kaiiash ‘C‘nané Agrawai and athers. "E W”“KMEI"’S. CQMEEEISAEmE Am. Ehi . Min u. A??EAL {INBER SECTiOr? 5 OF Tn 1923 cn’e $hri G inha‘udd Sin ie Bench: SJ: SC, Vama; cotmsel I‘m: the: appellams. Shri AK Athai‘ey, ccunsei for respondént No.2. .one fer respondentS No. 1 3a 3 mough served. ORAL ORDER I (Passed. on 14th (Lay 9f July, 201 1) , This appeal has been med Workmen’$ C‘mpensatlon Act, 1923 (for Short ‘the Act, 1923’) by the appellants/claimants against tha impugned award clated 31-01-2005 pa “sed by the; Conunissioner for Workman-$5 Compensation, Labour Court, Raipur {for Shon ‘tho CormuiS$ioner”; in Case No.63/ So far aS the interest and penalty“ has not been awarded on the amount of co ’1pensation. the Claimants are that the deceased Chandulal Sahu was an employee under respondent No.1. On 16—02-2003, du‘l‘ing course of employment, umier Séction 3C! of i116 we; Act.,'2(303/F, in 2, Bri'f f“ ‘ts ’f tie ease as projected by the deceased Chandulai Sahu died in the ~ accident. The deceasedpwas driver of the vehie ‘ bearing registration No. (1G. O4 ZA/2405 mid the vehicie was inSured with LBSpomient No.2. 3. The ciaimants being Iegai heirs of the daceasa‘l hac‘x filed a claim petiticn under Section i0 of T116: Act, 1923 c‘aiming compenSation of Rs.3,5l,O80/- for thé death of Chanduial Sahu. 4. In this appeal the following substaltiai question of law has been framed on 27-0 1—2010 aS per lst proviso tor sub-section (1} of See-than 3O of the Act, 1923: "Whether the iearned Commissioner for Workrnen’s compensation was justified in not awarding interest on the amount of compensation?” 5. There is no dispute that an award of Rs.2,97,29‘3/— has been passed by the Commissioner on 31—01—2005 and no interest on the amount of compensation i.e Rs. 2,97,293/— hrs been awarded. The provision of clause~(a) of sub-section (3) of Seet'on 4A is as under: “(a) direct that the employer shaii, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simpie interest thereon at the rate of tweive’ per cent perv annum or at such higher rate not. exceeding the maximum of the lending rates 1 1.- of any soheduied bank as may be specified oy . the Centrai Govermnent, by notifi “at‘ion in the Officiai Gazette, on the amount due”. The accident had occurred on 16-02~2003 and the amourt of compensation had faiien due on that date. ‘ A1, 6. During course of arguments, iearned counsei fm me appellanLs prays for framing of additional substantiai question of law with regarci to non—awardmg of penaity under Section 4A of the Act, 1923. His contention 1S that in the memo of appeal, he has proposed substantial question of law in this regard but the same has not been framed. by this Court. Substantial question of law has been framed on 27-0 1—20 10 and up till now, the appellants learned counsel has made no efforts to get additional substantial question of law framed for which a request has been made belatedly at the stage of final hearing which does not appear to be tenable, hence the request is disallowed. J~ compensation was not paid within the prescribed period of thirty days from the date ie 16—02-2003, that the pplicants were compelled to file an app"cation under Section 10 of the Act, 1923 before the Commissioner, on the basis of which the award of Rs.2,97,293/— was passed .on 31—01—2005. The amount of compensation ought to have been paid by the employer Within thirty days from the date of accident Le. 16—02-2003. The provision as contained in Clause (a) of sub—section (3) of Section 4A of the Act, 1923 appears to be mandatory in nature as the word “shall” has been used. As such, the appellants/ claimants were entitled to get simple interest @ lt is not in dispute that as the amount of w s 12% per 3111111111 from 17-03-2003 011 the amount of c0n1pe11sation Le. Rs.2,97,293/ - till The payment is made. 8. In the resuit, the appeal is partly alloweci. So far a3 awarding of intereSt is concernec}, the claimantS shall be entitled to get simple interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of compensation Lei Rs.2,97,293/— from 1103‘ 2003 tlil the payment is made for which respondent No. 3 Jr gilt Sir ”l1 Bhatia is held lia" directed to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum from ‘17— 03—2003 till the payment is made, Within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. There shall be no order as to costs/1%” ' U16. Respondent No. 3 is \ /// // Mmxibmww so] e g. wag? / ‘ /