IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 MFA.No. 110 of 2009() --------------------- WCC.66/2004 of W.C.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------------ NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., D.O., THRISSUR, REP. BY THE MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. MR.E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANTS AND IST O.P: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.M.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, KOODALI HOUSE, ANNATTUR, THRISSUR. 2. N.N.SHIBU, S/O.NARAYANAN, NADUVATHU HOUSE, P.O.KUZHIKKATTUSSERY. R1 BY ADV. MR.DILIP J. AKKARA THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.1247/2009 IN MFA NO.110/2009 DISMISSED 24/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.F.A.No.110 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Thrissur whereby he has awarded a compensation of Rs.74,012/= with 12% interest payable from the date of accident. Challenging the award of interest from the date of accident, this appeal is preferred. 2. The learned counsel for the insurance company very strongly contends before me that by virtue of the subsequent decisions of the Apex Court, entitlement is only from the date of order and therefore the order requires interference. A Division Bench of this Court had considered this matter in the backdrop of the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekha (2008 ACJ 886). In that case the Division Bench of this Court considered the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata (AIR 1976 SC 222). The Division Bench also considered the later : 2 : M.F.A.No.110 OF 2009 Division Bench decision of the Apex Court. Thereafter the Division Bench proceeded to held that when there is conflict between the decisions of the Supreme Court, the decision of the Larger bench will prevail. So, in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, the Division Bench held that the entitlement is from the date of accident and not from the date of award. The Himachal Pradesh High Court also did have an opportunity to consider this question in the decision reported in New India Assurance Company v. Budh Ram (2009 (4) TAC 614), which is extracted as follows: “The Constitution Bench had already decided the question as to when compensation falls due in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Unfortunately, this decision of the Constitution Bench was not brought to the notice of the Apex Court while deciding National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and Another, 2007 A.C.J. 845: 2007 (2) T.A.C 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 thirty 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. : 3 : M.F.A.No.110 OF 2009 While taking this view, I am supported by a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekha, 2008 A.C.J 886” 3. By virtue of the decisions referred to above, the entitlement is from the date of accident and therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.F.A.No.110 OF 2009