IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 728 of 2006 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Sri Sohan Lal & others … Respondents Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 10.08.2006 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Haldwani, District Nainital in W.C. Case No. 6 of 2002, Sohan Lal & another Vs M/s S.G. Forwards Private Ltd & another whereby the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 2,47,443/- along with interest @ 8% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the son (Om Shankar) of the claimants was appointed as a cleaner on the truck of M/s S.G. Forwards Pvt. Ltd. and was getting a salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month along with Rs. 50/- per day for food expenses. On 18.05.2000, Om Shankar opened the lid of the diesel tank for checking the air and oil of the tank suddenly fire splashed out from the tank and he was burnt completely. He was admitted in the Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, where during the course of his treatment he was died on 22.05.2000. Therefore, the claimants filed an application before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner under the provision of Workmen 2 Compensation Act, 1923 for a sum of Rs. 4,39,000/- as compensation. 3. Thereafter, the learned Commissioner issued notices to the parties. The opposite parties filed the written statement before the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner after hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as going through the entire material available before him allowed the application of the claimants by awarding a sum of Rs. 2,47,443/- along with interest @ 8% per annum vide judgment and award dated 10.08.2006. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal before this Court. 5. Heard Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the learned Commissioner did not consider the report of the expert who have stated in the report that the diesel tank does not have the chances of self ignition and no fire can splash out from the diesel tank. 7. After having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as going through the impugned judgment and record, I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the surveyor had not clearly mentioned that the man catches fire splashed out 3 from the diesel tank while opening of its lid. The owner of the truck as well as claimants have stated that the said accident took place due to the reasons mentioned above. It is further clear from the perusal of the First Information Report as well as postmortem report that the deceased died due to splash of fire. As far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Commissioner relied upon the statement made by the owner of the truck, which is paper No. 16, who has stated that the deceased was working in his firm as a cleaner of Truck No. HR38E/1060 and was getting a salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 23 years of age. The learned Commissioner in the absence of any documentary evidence taken into consideration the monthly salary of the deceased as Rs. 2,250/-. In this way, in view of the provision of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,47,443/-. It is not disputed that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., therefore, the learned Commissioner decreed the petition against the Insurance Company. 8. In the way the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 10. The respondents/claimants No. 1 and 2 also filed cross objection against the appeal filed by the Insurance Company for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 4 11. Learned counsel for the respondents, in order to support his version has invited my attention towards Section 4A(3)(a) of the Workmen Compensation Act which shows that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner shall direct the employer, in addition to the amount of arrear, pay simple interest thereon @ 12% per annum or on such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rate of any schedule bank as may be specified in the Central Government by notification Official Gazzettee, on the amount due. 12. I am therefore, of the view that in view of the aforesaid provision, the Compensation Commission should have awarded an interest of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the cross appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimants/respondents are entitled to get Rs. 2,47,443/- along with interest @ 12% per annum instead of 8% per annum as has been awarded by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner for the period mentioned in the impugned judgment and award. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 06.06.2008 ASWAL