IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 MFA. (W.C.C.) No. 192 of 2009() --------------------- WCC.59/2003 of WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY IN WCC NO. 59/03: ---------------------------------------------------------------- THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PUNALUR BRANCH REP. BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE KOCHI, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY MR.M.A.GEORGE, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTSS/APPLICANT AND THE FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY IN WCC 59/03: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJENDRAN NAIR, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR MACHINE OPERATOR-CUM MACHANIC OF MAIN FACTORY SHALLIACARAI ESTATE QUARTERS, PUNALUR. 2. THE MANAGER, RAJAGIRI RUBBER AND PRODUCE CO. LTD., SHALIACARAI ESTATE.P.O. PUNALUR. BY MR.C.RAJENDRAN FOR R1 MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 MR.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2010, ALONG WITH M.F.A.(W.C.C)No.198/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.F.A.(W.C.C.) No.192/2009 I.A.No.2179/2009 IN M.F.A.No.192/2009 DISMISSED. Sd/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE 07/01/2010 TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN,J ============================== M.F.A.(W.C.C) Nos.192 & 198 of 2009 ============================== Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Both these appeals are preferred challenging the question regarding the commencement of the interest. M.F.A.192/2009 is preferred against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kollam in W.C.C.59/2003 and the other is preferred against the order of the same court in W.C.C.38/2002. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that since the quantification of the amount takes place only at the time of determination of the amount finally the liability to pay interest shall commence only from that date. In support of the said proposition judgment of the Supreme Court also is brought to my notice. Now the question is fairly covered by one of the Division Bench of this Court in which it has been considered including the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. The Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company v. Rekha (2007 (4) KLT 386) considered the question and held that the compensation when falls due is the date of the accident. In arriving at such a decision the Division M.F.A.Nos.192 & 198/ 2009 2 Bench of this Court considered the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Pratab Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another (AIR 1976 SC 222). In that decision the Honourable Apex Court had held that the interest is liable to be paid from the date of the accident. It appears that the decision of the Constitutional Bench has not been referred to in other cases. The Division Bench again considered that question and held that when there is a conflict between the decisions of the Supreme Court, the decision of the Larger Bench will prevail. Therefore, in the light of the decision reported in National Insurance Company v. Rekha (2007 (4) KLT 386) which had explained the position the liability to pay the interest is to commence from the date of accident. Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court also had the opportunity to consider this question in the decision reported in New India Assurance Company v. Budh Ram and Another (2009 (4) T.A.C. 614). In paragraph 2 the following passage is extracted: “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 M.F.A.Nos.192 & 198/ 2009 3 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. 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.” The said decision also had taken note of the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench ruling of the Kerala High Court in arriving at a decision that interest is due from the date of accident. Therefore, in the light of these principles I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and so these appeals fails and hence it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE dvs