HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3874 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in W.C. No.184 of 2002 vide order dated 02-08-2003 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, applicant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The owner of the autorickshaw bearing No.AP25 – ST – 6434 involved in the accident and its insurer are opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in the W.C. before the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the W.C. before the learned Commissioner. 4. The case of the applicant before the learned Commissioner is that he was working under opposite party No.1 as driver of the autorickshaw bearing No. AP25 – T – 6434 and while so on 07-08- 2001, during the course of employment, as per the instructions of opposite party No.1, owner of the autorickshaw, while he was driving the autorickshaw from Mallaram to Nizamabad along with others in the autorickshaw, near Nagaram turning at about 8-00 PM, he lost control over the autorickshaw and dashed against another autorickshaw bearing No.AP13 – V – 8493, which was coming in the opposite direction, as a result, both the autorickshaws turned turtle and all the inmates including the drivers fell down and sustained multiple and grievous injuries all over the body along with the applicant. He sustained fracture of right clavicle, injuries on head, back, legs, hands and other parts of the body. He was aged 22 years and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/-. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 5. The owner of the autorickshaw, opposite party No.1, filed his counter stating that the applicant was working under his control on the autorickshaw involved in the accident and was paying a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month towards salary. 6. The insurer of the above autorickshaw, opposite party No.2, filed its counter denying the case of the applicant and also its liability for payment of compensation. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the learned Commissioner: “1. “Whether the Applicant is a workman within the meaning of the Act and whether the accident occurred during the course of employment under Opposite Party No.1? 2. If so, to what relief the Applicant is entitled and against which of the Opposite Parties?”” 8. To prove his case, applicant got examined himself as PW.1 and Dr. L. Ramulu, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the opposite parties, none were examined, but a copy of the insurance policy of the autorickshaw involved in the accident was marked as Ex.B-1 on behalf of the insurance company. 9. Based on the evidence available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, learned Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.1,02,514/- to the applicant against both the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of the impugned order. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, applicant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Since neither of the opposite parties preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, appellant, is that applicant was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by working as driver of the autorickshaw and due to the accident, he sustained 60% disability, but the learned Commissioner has taken the wages of the applicant at Rs.2,000/- per month and the disability at 40%, and thus the learned Commissioner erred in awarding just and appropriate compensation to the applicant. He also contends that the learned Commissioner ought to have awarded interest on the compensation from the date of accident till realization of the total compensation. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is more than reasonable and the applicant is not entitled to the compensation from the date of accident, as such, there is no need to award any interest from the date of accident as he is entitled to compensation only from the date of order, in fact one month thereafter, if the order is not complied with. 13. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 14. The claimant was aged 27 years. He sustained fracture of clavicle alone. He did not sustain any injury to his shoulder as contended by his counsel. Hence, the disability of 40% taken by the learned Commissioner is also incorrect. 15. Indisputably, there is no fracture to the shoulder or any serious injury to the shoulder, as such, it is not a case where there can be restriction of shoulder movements. No doubt, there was an injury to the clavicle of the applicant but the same cannot be considered as any serious injury causing 40% disability. In a case of this nature, percentage of disability need not be specifically considered. Thus, for one fracture that too of a clavicle, an amount of Rs.1,02,514/- awarded by the learned Commissioner is sufficient, and therefore, it is not a case for enhancement of compensation. Thus, the compensation of Rs.1,02,514/- awarded by the learned Commissioner is confirmed. 16. Coming to the question of interest, learned counsel for the applicant relying on the decisions of the Full Bench (consisting of three Judges) of the Apex Court in MANGHAR SINGH v. JASHWANT SINGH[1] and KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. VALSALA K.[2] and also a decision of a single Judge of this Court in NANU v. GHOUSE MOHINUDDIN AND ANOTHER[3], contends that compensation has to be awarded from the date of accident and interest has to be paid from the date of accident but not from the date of award/order. 17. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company relied on a latest decision of a Full Bench (consisting of three Judges) of the Apex Court in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. v. MOHD. NASIR AND ANOTHER[4], where it is clearly held that interest shall be paid only from the date of award of compensation and not from the date of accident. 18. In these circumstances, I hold that the applicant shall be entitled to interest only from the date when the amount became due i.e., from the date of award/order in case the compensation is not paid or deposited within one month from the date of order. Thus, the applicant is entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the date when it became due i.e., from the date of order in case the amount is not deposited within thirty days after the date of order. 19. Thus, granting interest at 12% per annum on the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner from the date of award, in case the compensation was not deposited within thirty (30) days from the date of award, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 23, 2010. PV [1] (1998) 9 SCC 134 [2] (1999 (6) ALT 6 (SC) [3] (2004(5) ALD 48 [4] 2009 AIR SCW 3717