IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 MFA.No. 90 of 2008() -------------------- WCC.38/2004 of W.C.C., KANNUR .................... APPELLANT: 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY -------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PAYYANNUR, REP. BY THE MANAGER, KOCHI, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN-35. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT AND IST OPPOSITE PARTY ----------------------------------------------- 1. FAIZAL AKKALATH, AGED 25, S/O. ABOOBACKER.T.V, ALEENKEEZHIL, P.O. VELLUR, KANNUR. 2. E.K. MUHAMMED KUNHI, S/O.T.C. AHAMMED HAJI, E.K. HOUSE, ALEENKEEZHIL, P.O. VELLUR, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN FOR R1 SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R1 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.F.A. No. 90 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph J., The appellant is the second opposite party in an application filed by the first respondent herein challenges the order by which the Workman's Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.16,128/- along with 12% interest from the date of accident. 2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned senior counsel would submit that the direction to pay interest from the date of accident is unsustainable. He would submit that only upon adjudication, the liability arises and therefore interest could be ordered only from the date of the adjudication and not from the date of the accident. Learned counsel relied on the M.F.A. No. 90 of 2008 :2: judgments of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed & Another [2007 AIR SCW 1265], Kamla Chaturvedi v. National Insurance Co. [2008(4) KLT 862 (SC)] and Palraj v. Divisional Controller, NEKRTC [2010-JT-10-94]. They are all judgments rendered by two judges bench. No doubt, they tend to support the case of the appellant. However, we notice that the question engaged the attention of the Apex Court and a bench of four judges in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata [(1976)1 SCC 289] held as follows : “It is wrong to contend that the compensation had not fallen due until it was 'settled' by the Commissioner under Section 19 by his impugned order dated May 6, 1969. The employer became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of employment. There was no suspension of the compensation pending settlement. It was the duty of the appellant, under Section 4A(1) of the Act, to pay M.F.A. No. 90 of 2008 :3: the compensation at the rate provided by Section 4 as soon as the personal injury was caused to the respondent. So in the present facts and circumstances the Commissioner was fully justified in making an order for the payment of interest and the penalty.” No doubt, it is pointed out that the said judgment related to a scheduled injury and the facts were different. Thereafter, similar question arose before this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekha [2007(4) KLT 386]. Therein also, the decision in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed & Another [2007 AIR SCW 1265] was considered by the Division Bench and it was interalia held as follows : “In Mubasir Ahamed's case, Maghar Singh's case was relied, but, directed to pay interest from the date of award only on the basis of the facts of that case. Wide powers vested in the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Art.142 of the Constitution of India are M.F.A. No. 90 of 2008 :4: not available to the Tribunal or even to the High Courts while deciding a statutory appeal. (See the observations in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co.(P) Ltd. (AIR 1996 SC 2005). We are bound by statutory provisions and law declared by the Apex Court as mandated by Art.141 of the Constitution as held in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdheesan (2002) 2 SCC 420). When there is conflict between the decisions of the Supreme Court, decision of the larger Bench will prevail (See : Mattulal v. Radhe Lal (AIR 1974 SC 1596). In view of the statutory provisions and larger Bench decision, we see no ground to interfere in that part of the order in awarding interest from the date of accident. We also note that this ground was not raised before the Commissioner or even in the appeal memorandum, but only raised as an additional ground by filing petition dated 7.6.2007 in the appeal filed in the year 1998. However, we see no ground to interfere in the impugned award and hence this appeal is dismissed.” However, it is pointed out that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. M.F.A. No. 90 of 2008 :5: 4. The same view was taken by another Division Bench in an employer's appeal in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. P.K.Ashraf and Others [2009(1) KHC 799 (DB)]. In the light of the said legal position, we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant. Accordingly the M.F.A. is dismissed. Sd/- K.M.JOSEPH, (JUDGE) Sd/- M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/ / TRUE COPY / PA TO JUDGE