"•^.^K c' IN THE HON'BLE HIRH FQURT OF CHHATTISnARH AT BILASPUR -^.1^' (C.G.) M.A.CONO. Q,Q<1 DF 2009 ~c T APPELLANT / lff5 ^•"^ c^^ (-••'. 1 -A.-- €^^ y'^" RESPQNDENTS lh ^ 3. Claimed before by the Commissioner Rs.^2^000 under W.C. Act ^;;'^'^ E!^ ^SEiii;.?^? Thanu @ Thaneshwar, S/o Romanlal Sahu, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Gujra, Post Office Doma, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS Dinesh Rathi, S/o Late Kanhaiyaloal Rathi, aged about not known, Proprietor/Owner, Satyam Rice Mill, Sehradabri Dhamtari, Police Station Arjuni, C.G. At present R/o Satyam Sales Corporation (Hero Honda Dealer) Near Bathena Chowk, Dhamtari (C.G.) Yashwant Yadav, S/o Nathla Yadav, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Dani Tola, Dhamtari (C.G.) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Kachhari Chowk, Madina Building, Raipur (C.G.) ^f^Ti-l.^. Amount awarded by the Commissioner Rs. l,74,9l4/- ^- ClaimedinthisMemoofAppeal Rs.^SQft^. ^OO^Z MISCEU^NESQUS_APPEALJJNDE^SECT!Q^30_QFTHE WORKMEN.S COMPFW<;ATION APT, 1923 ^ ' :^ is?^^snfff -«K& f&a-.^SIl I S WSy""'9 S i/ s' ^/ / ^L.ri'^^ =sffi% ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL fC) No. 887 of20Q9 APPELLANT Thanu (% Thaneshwar. Versus RESPONDENTS Dinesh Rathi and others. SINGLE BENCH: HON. SHRI N.K.AGARWAL, J. PRESENT:- Shri P.P.Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondent No.3. None for respondents No. 1 8s 2. ORAL ORDER (25-7-2011) This is claimant's appeal against the award dated 04.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Raipur (for short the Commissioner') in case No. l/B/239/2005/WCAct/Non- Fatal. 2. The learned Commissioner, on close scrutiny of the evidence led in the case held: the accident arose out of and during the course of emplo5rment in which appellant has sustained injuries in the said accident took place on 19.4.2005 and awarded Rs.l,74.914/- as compensation in favour of the appellant/claimant; fastened the liability to pay amount of compensation on the respondents jointly and severally while directing them to deposit the amount of "f:.^ €7 compensation within 45 days from the date of judgment. It was also directed that in default, the amount of compensation shall cariy simple interest at 9% per annum. 3. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question oflaw by this Court on 25.03.2010: "Whether the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in not awarding interest and penalty in terms of Section 4 A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?" 4. Shri P.P.Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at fhe outset, submits: he would confine his argument only with regard to interest part and not penalty part in this case. He would submit: the learned Commissioner went wrong in not awarding interest in terms of mandatory provisions contained under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Acf), therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed on this count. 5. On fhe other hand, Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No.3 supported the order and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation is just and proper compensation and needs no interference. 6. Admittedly, appellant - Thanu @ Tharieshwar sustained injuries arose out of and in the course of employment under respondent No.l and the fact of accident was also known to respondent No.l. It is also not in dispute that respondent •-2M No.3/The New India Insurance Company Limited has undertaken the risk of labourers by issuing policy of insurance under the Act. 7. As per Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act, where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall-direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding fhe maximum of the lending rates of any schedule bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due. 8. A bare perusal of the above provision would reveal that the provision is mandatory in nature. Once the employer is found liable for payment of compensation, in such a situation, the claimants shall also be entitled for interest from the date when it fell due. 9. Division Bench of this Court in case of ICICI Lonabard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hariram & Others (MAC No. 1588 of 2009, decided on 8th March, 10), has held in para 14 as under: "15. We are not required to dilate much on the above issue in view of the recent dictum of fhe Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd. Nasir and Another, reported in 2009 (6) SCC 280 wherein after considering the decision of the ^^ Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Mubasir Ahmed and another, it was held in para 47: "47. The second question which arises for consideration is with regard to the payment of interest. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever fhat interest would be from the date of default and not from the date of award of compensation. 10. In view of dictum of above referred judgment, and looking to the.mandatory nature of provisions contained in Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act, the Commissioner ought to have granted 12 percent interest per annum from the date of application on the ampunt of award. 11. For the forgoing, the substantial question oflaw framed is answered in affirmative. The appeal is allowed in part. Apart from amount awarded by the Commissioner, the appellant is also entitled for the interest @ 12 percent per annum from the date of application. 12. The insiirance company is granted three month's time to deposit the above interest amount. 13. No order as to costs. .,., "."' N.K. Aerawa! Judge c