IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (WCA) 254 of 2001 and FAO (WCA) 297 of 2002. Date of decision 10.3.2008. FAO (WCA) 254 of 2001 New India Assurance Co. ….Appellant. Versus Parkash Chand & another …..Respondents. FAO (WCA) 297 of 2002. Parkash Chand …. Appellant. Versus M/S Sankhyan and another …. Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. FAO (WCA) 254 of 2001 For the appellant Sh. K.D.Sood, Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocdate. For respondent No. 1 Shri R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Naveen Bhardwaj,Advocate. FAO (WCA) 297 of 2002. For the appellant Sh. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. For respondent No. 2 Shri K.D.Sood, Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral). Both these appeals arise out of a common award having been made by the Commissioner under the Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereafter referred to ‘the Act’). The Insurance Company challenged the award in FAO(WCA) 254 of 2001 and the claimant prayed for enhancement of the awarded amount in FAO (WCA) 297 of 2002. FAO(WCA) 254 of 2001 was admitted by this Court on three substantial questions of law as framed, namely whether the Commissioner was right in law in rejecting the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the Insurance Company, whether there was proper renewal of the driving licence and lastly whether the interest which has been awarded to the workman is in accordance with law. On the first two points raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company all that need be said is that the material brought on record of the case does not justify adjudication on these two questions as raised. A scrutiny of the record also shows that the contentions now sought to be urged by the Company have been disposed of after a sound appreciation of the facts on record. I do not see any reason to interfere in the findings arrived at by the Commissioner after due appreciation of facts on the two points as urged. - 3 - On the third aspect, the matter now stands concluded by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Mubasir Ahmad and another, AIR 2007 SC 1208 wherein it was held: “9. Interest is payable under Section 4-A(3) if there is default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due. The question of liability under Section 4-A was dealt with by this Court in Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh (1998 (9) SCC 134). By Amending Act, 14 of 1995, Section 4-A of the Act was amended, inter alia, fixing the minimum rate of interest to be simple interest @ 12%. In the instant case, the accident took place after the amendment and, therefore, the rate of 12% as fixed by the High Court cannot be faulted. But the period as fixed by it is wrong. The starting point is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due. Obviously it cannot be the date of accident. Since no indication is there as when it becomes due, it has to be taken to be the date of adjudication of the claim. This appears to be so because Section 4-A (1) prescribes that compensation under Section 4 - 4 - shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The compensation becomes due on the basis of adjudication of the claim made. The adjudication under Section 4 in some cases involves the assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner. Unless adjudication is done, question of compensation becoming due does not arise. The position becomes clearer on a reading of sub-section (2) of Section 4-A. It provides that provisional payment to the extent of admitted liability has to be made when employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed. The crucial expression is "falls due". Significantly, legislature has not used the expression "from the date of accident". Unless there is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise.“ The direction issued by the Commissioner to the effect that the interest would be payable from the date of the accident cannot be sustained. The award is accordingly modified to this extent. In FAO (WCA) 297 of 2002 the workman has challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to - 5 - him. On the question of law raised for determination of this Court, Explanation II to Section 4 of the Act limiting the wages for calculating the amount to be awarded was Rs.2000/- on the date when the accident occurred. This amount was enhanced to Rs.4000/- by Act 46 of 2000. The amendment was effective w.e.f. 8.12.2000. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the award cannot be sustained as the direction given by the Commissioner for deposit of the penalty and the interest awarded in the government treasury is illegal. He submits that Section 4-A of the Act was amended by Act 46 of 2000 and sub-section (3-A) was introduced which reads: “(3-A) The interest and the penalty payable under sub-section (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependant, as the case may be.” He submits that on the day when the amendment was carried out, the case was pending in Court and such amount was legitimately due to the workman. Being a beneficent legislation, the benefit must go to the workman and the State is not entitled to this amount. There is force in the submission made by learned counsel for the claimant. The Act was - 6 - amended w.e.f. 8.12.2000 as noticed above. From that date, the workman or his dependents are entitled to the interest and penalty. The direction given by the Commissioner cannot be upheld. This appeal is partly allowed. In the circumstances, the award is modified to the extent (a) that the interest awarded by the Commissioner shall be from the date of award and not from the date of accident as held in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Mubasir Ahmad and another (supra); (b) the workman will be entitled to the amount of penalty and interest awarded which will be paid to him forthwith. A direction is issued to the Commissioner to ensure that such amount is paid to the claimant immediately. March 10, 2008 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.