IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(WCA) No.487 of 2002. Date of decision: 21.10.2008. New India Assurance Company …Appellant Versus Sh.Jagat Singh & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr.K.D. Sood, Advocate. For RespondentsNo.1 & 2: Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Commissioner, (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., exercising powers under the Workmen’s Compensation Act The grievance made out by the appellant- Company is that the liability to pay interest is not that of the Insurance Company as the deposit of the amount due has been made before the Commissioner. This appeal was admitted on three questions of law as framed on 12.3.2003:- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 (i) Whether the insurance company can be fastened with liability to pay interest even after it has deposited the entire compensation due with the Workmen Compensation Commissioner? (ii) Whether it is the duty and responsibility of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner to distribute and disburse the amount deposited with it by an employer or the insurance company after issuing notices to the persons entitled to the compensation? (iii) Whether in case the Workmen Compensation Commissioner fails to discharge its duty, the liability to pay interest can be shifted to the employer or the insured? Question No.1: On the first question, all that need be said is that the order dated 2.4.1996 passed by the Commissioner reads:- “2.4.96 Case called. Present Km.Punam Gupta for the applicant petitioner. Also present Sh.Y.R. Desta for the respondent Sh.Kundan. He revealed that the insurance company is New India Assurance Co.Shimla, Sansar Villa, Near High Court. Summons be issued to the New India Assurance Co.on the above address. Order of ex parte set aside. To come up on 15.5.96.” 3 It is obvious that the Insurance Company was impleaded for the first time in the year 1996. Submissions made by learned counsel on behalf of the claimants that the Insurance Company was impleaded on 1.9.1993 when the petition was filed cannot be accepted as it is against the record of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also drawn my attention to the deposit voluntarily made by the Insurance Company. The record shows that an application dated 19.9.2002 was filed before the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act whereby a sum of Rs.87,388/- was deposited by the Insurance Company vide cheque No.030245, dated 30.5.1994, in the Current Account No.63039 on 16.6.94. There is no evidence on the record to show as to whether any information was sent to the Insurance Company either by the claimant or by the owner informing that the accident took place on 13.03.1993 so that compliance could be made with respect to the same before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation. In these circumstances, I hold that the Insurance Company can not be fastened with the total liability to pay interest on the amount so deposited. The liability, if any, would be that of the owner and claimants would be free to recover the amount of interest from the owners. However, the interest for one year would be recovered from the Insurance 4 Company i.e. from the date of accident to the date of deposit. Questions No.2 and 3: Both these questions will be taken up together. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn my attention to Section 8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, which provides:- “8. Distribution of compensation.- “Substituted by Act 5 of 1929, S.4, for sub-Ss.(1) to (3). (1) No payment of compensation in respect of a workman whose injury has resulted in death, and no payment of a lump sum as compensation to a woman or a person under a legal disability shall be made otherwise than by deposit with the Commissioner, and no such payment made directly by an employer shall be deemed to be a payment of compensation: “Substituted by Act 15 of 1933, S.6, for the former proviso”.{Provided that, in the case of a deceased workman, an employer may make to any dependant advances on account of compensation (substituted by Act 30 of 1995, S.6, for “not exceeding an aggregate of one hundred rupees, and so much of such aggregate” (w.e.f. 15.9.1995)[of an amount equal to three months’ wages of such workman and so much of such amount] as does not exceed the compensation payable to that dependant shall be deducted by the 5 Commissioner from such compensation and repaid to the employer}” (2) Any other sum amounting to not less than ten rupees which is payable as compensation may be deposited with the Commissioner on behalf of the person entitled thereto. (3) The receipt of the Commissioner shall be a sufficient discharge in respect of any compensation deposited with him.] (4) On the deposit of any money under sub-section (1), (Inserted by Act 5 of 1929,S.4) [as compensation in respect of a deceased workman] the Commissioner (The words "shall deduct there from the actual cost or the workmen's funeral expenses, to an amount not exceeding fifty rupees and pay the same to the person by whom such expenses were incurred, and "omitted by Act 30 of 1995, S.6 (w.e.f. 15-9-1995) shall, if he thinks necessary, cause notice to be published or to be served on each dependant in such manner as he thinks fit, calling upon the dependants to appear before him on such date as he may fix for determining the distribution of the compensation. If the Commissioner is satisfied after any inquiry which he may deem necessary, that no dependant exists, he shall repay the balance of the money to the employer by whom it was paid. The 6 Commissioner shall, on application by the employer, furnish a statement showing in detail all disbursements made. [Sub-sections (5) to (7) substituted by Act 5 of 1929, S.4, for sub-Sec. (5)]. (5) Compensation deposited in respect of a deceased workman shall, subject to any deduction made under sub-section (4), be apportioned among the dependants of the deceased workman or any of them in such proportion as the Commissioner thinks fit, or may, in the discretion of the Commissioner, be allotted to any one dependant. (6) Where any compensation deposited with the Commissioner is payable to any person, the Commissioner shall, if the person to whom the compensation is payable is not a woman or a person under a legal disability, and may, in other cases, pay the money to the person entitled thereto. (7) Where any lump sum deposited with the Commissioner is payable to a woman or a person under a legal disability, such sum may be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with for the benefit of the woman, or of such person during his disability, in such manner as the Commissioner may direct; and where a half-monthly payment is payable to any person under a legal disability, the Commissioner may, of his own motion or on an application made to him in this 7 behalf, order that the payment be made during the disability to any dependant of the workman or to any other person, whom the Commissioner thinks best fitted to provide for the welfare of the workman.] (Sub-S(6) renumbered as sub-S.(8) by Act 5 of 1929, S.4.) [(8)] Where, on application made to him in this behalf or otherwise, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on account of neglect of children on the part of a parent or on account of the variation of the circumstances of any dependant or for any other sufficient cause, an order of the Commissioner as to the distribution of any sum paid as compensation or as to the manner in which any sum payable to any such dependant is to be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with, ought to be varied, the Commissioner may make such orders for the variation of the former order as he thinks just in the circum- stances of the case: Provided that no such order prejudicial to any person shall be made unless such person has been given an opportunity of showing cause why the order should not be made, or shall be made in any case in which it would involve the repayment by a dependant of any sum already paid to him. (Inserted, by Act 5 of 1929. S.4). [(9) Where the Commissioner varies any order under sub-section (8) by reason of the 8 fact that payment of compensation to any person has been obtained by fraud, impersonation or other improper means, any amount so paid to or on behalf of such person may be recovered in the manner hereinafter provided in section 31.]” Once the deposit has been made, the duty of the Insurance Company was over and no fault could be attributed to it. These two questions are decided in favour of the appellants. While parting with the case, I must express my displeasure in the manner in which these proceedings have been conducted before the Commissioner. To say that the conduct of the proceeding has been very casual and cavalier is only making an understatement. A total lack of knowledge of the provisions of law and the casualness in which the proceedings have been conducted deserve condemnation. This appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. October 21, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.