IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 MFA.No. 202 of 2008() --------------------- WCC.39/2001 of W.C.C., KANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): OPPOSITE PARTY ---------------------------- HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD,KADOORA DIVISION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,P.O.MEEPPADI, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT ------------------------ AYSHA, W/O.MOIDEENKUTTY @ KUNHAPPA, KATTACHIRA HOUSE, KADOORA DIVISION, HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD, MEPPADI. ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM FOR R1 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.F.A.No.202 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kannur in W.C.C.No.39/2001. A workman sustained injuries and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarded him a sum of Rs.39,833/= and directed the owner to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident to the date of deposit. It is challenging that decision, the employer has come up in appeal. 2. The short point that is canvassed before me is regarding the interest. The learned counsel would submit that as per the rulings of the Apex Court rendered by two Judges, the liability to pay interest does not start from the date of the accident but only from the date of quantifying the amount and further canvassed for the decision that being a non schedule injury, one may not be able to correctly or precisely arrive at a figure. 3. I will just refer to the decision of this Court reported : 2 : M.F.A.No.202 OF 2008 in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rekha (2008 ACJ 886). This question was precisely considered by a Division Bench holding that as per the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case reported in Pradap Narain Singh v. Sreenivas Sabata (AIR 1976 222), the liability to pay interest arises from the date of the accident. It was also pointed out before the Division Bench that there is a two Bench decision of the Supreme Court to the contrary and, therefore, the Division Bench considered that point also and relying upon the principle of the binding precedent that a Larger Bench decision has to prevail followed by the dicutum laid down in Pradap Narain Singh v. Sreenivas Sabata (AIR 1976 222) and held that the interest is to commence from the date of injury and not otherwise. I find it in a later decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court reported in New India Assurnace Co.Ltd. v. Budh Ram (2009 (4) TAC 614). The learned Judge had stated as follows: “The Constitution Bench had already decided the question as to when the compensation falls due in terms of the workmen's Compensation Act. Unfortunately, this decision of the Constitution Bench was not brought to the notice of the Apex Court while deciding the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. : 3 : M.F.A.No.202 OF 2008 Mubasir Ahmed (2007 ACJ 845 : 2007 (2) TAC 3). Therefore, I feel that this Court is bound by the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court and I accordingly hold that the compensation falls due on the date when the accident takes place and in case the same is not deposited within 30 days, the workman is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% per annum without having to show that delay in depositing the compensation was attributable to the employer. While taking this view, I am supported by a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha (2008 ACJ 886). 4. So, in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court and a Division Bench of this Court and also on the basis of the decision referred to above, it has to be held that the interest has to be paid from the date of the accident or the date of sustainment of the injury and, therefore, the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner does not call for any interference. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.F.A.No.202 OF 2008