IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(WCA) No.298 of 2008. Date of decision: 29.04.2009. New India Assurance Company …Appellant Versus Smt.Jasbir Kaur & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr.B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 3: Mr.J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. Record of the Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, has been called for and considered. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urges that the award is not sustainable on the ground that the admissions made by the witnesses in their evidence have been ignored which would render the judgment a nullity that is to say an important question of law for consideration would arise. He submits that the salary of the deceased was only Rs.2500/- per month, whereas the Commissioner while awarding has calculated it to be at Rs.4,000/- per month. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 It is by now well settled that an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’), cannot be treated and compared with appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (See: Dwarka Arm Factory, Bellary and Khaja Hussain R.(1998)1, LLJ, 15). Even if the question raised in the appeal is to be considered as a question of law, I do not find that the submission made by the learned counsel can be accepted for the reasons that RW-1, employer of the deceased, has admitted in his cross- examination that over and above Rs.2500/-, the deceased has been paid Rs.40.50 paise per day extra. On the second question regarding award of interest, this Court in FAO(WCA) No.270 of 2002, Sita Ram vs. Satvinder Singh and another, decided on 30.5.2008 held:- “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 ACJ 845. 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 3 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. vs. Rekha, 2008 ACJ 886.” This judgment was later-on followed in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Miss Sushma and Others, 2008(2) Shim.L.C. 424, where this Court re-affirmed that compensation “falls due” at the time when the accident takes place and not at the time when the case is adjudicated. For arriving at this conclusion, the Court relied upon the Constitutional Bench decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Shrinivas Sabata and another, AIR 1976 SC 222. In these circumstances, I do not find any question of law in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. April 29, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.