F.A.O.No.4815 of 2007 (O&M) : 1 : ***** United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mangej Devi & others Present: Mr.Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) The application is filed by Mangej Devi widow of Chander Singh @ Ram Chander and Gulab Singh son of Chander Singh @ Ram Chander, residents of village Dhansu, Tehsil and District Hisar. The applicants claimed compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs along with the interest on account of death of Kamal, who allegedly died during the course of employment with respondent Nos.3 and 4. Kamal is son of respondent Mangej Devi and brother of Gulab Singh. Deceased was working as a driver with respondent Nos.3 and 4 on their jeep on a monthly salary of Rs.3500/- plus Rs.50/- as daily allowance. On 25.1.2003, in the vicinity of Petrol Pump near village Jakhoda on National Highway No.10 on Rohtak-Delhi road, the jeep met with an accident with Tata-407 vehicle No.HR-46A/4278 leading to death of Kamal. The deceased was 24 years of age. The accident was within the knowledge of the appellants and they still did not discharge their liability towards the claimant-respondents despite demand leading to filing of the claim petition. In support of the claim, Mangej Devi appeared as a F.A.O.No.4815 of 2007 (O&M) : 2 : witness. She also proved on record the copy of notice, Exh. P-1 and postal receipts, Exhs.P-2, P-3 and P-4. Mahesh Kumar, respondent No.4, appeared as RW-1. No evidence was led on behalf of respondent No.3 despite opportunities and accordingly the evidence of respondent No.3 was closed on 15.5.2007. The Commissioner, while deciding the claim appreciated the evidence and held that the respondent-claimants had every cause to file the claim petition. Commissioner also found that Kamal was employed as a driver by respondent No.4 on the monthly salary of Rs.3500/- and he died during the course of employment. The claimants were found dependent on the deceased being his mother and brother and thus were entitled to compensation under Section 2 (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”). The order passed by the Commissioner has been impugned through the present appeal. The sole submission made before me by the counsel for the appellant is that the interest in this case was awardable from the date of adjudication, but not from the date of accident. In support of his submission, the counsel has referred to the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and another, 2007(2) Punjab Law Reporter 188. The counsel would contend that the interest is payable under Section 4A(3) if there is default in paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due. It is on this basis, the counsel would contend that interest in this case would be payable from the date of the adjudication as prior to that date the liability was not determined and default in payment of compensation can not be urged. F.A.O.No.4815 of 2007 (O&M) : 3 : The submissions made by the counsel for the appellant are misplaced. Interest is payable under Section 4A(3) if there is default in paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due. Thus, the starting point, as held in the case of Mubasir Ahmed (supra) is on completion of one month from the date it fell due. Section 4-A(1) clearly provides that compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. Section 4-A (2) further provides that in case when employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts. Objects and reasons of the section would show that this provision is made in order to ensure that the workman is able to get whatever amount the employer is prepared to pay immediately pending a decision on the amount of compensation actually due. As per Section 3, if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of employment his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Compensation, thus, would fall due as soon as the accident takes place causing death or disablement of the workman. In Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another, AIR 1976 SC 222 it is held that the liability of the employer arises as soon as the injury is caused and not at any subsequent occasion. It is further observed that provisions of Section 19 which provide a machinery for settlement of the claim by the Commissioner does not have the effect of suspending the liability of an employer to pay the compensation till after the settlement contemplated by Section 19. It is held as duty of the employer to pay compensation at the rate F.A.O.No.4815 of 2007 (O&M) : 4 : provided by Section 4 as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman. It would be of advantage to quote relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard:- “Section 3 of the Act deals with the employer's liability for compensation. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the employer shall be liable to pay compensation if “personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.” It was not the case of the employer that the right to compensation was taken away under sub-section (5) of Section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil court for damages, in respect of the injury, against the employer or any other person. The employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident, which admittedly arose out of and in the course of the employment. It is therefore futile to contend that the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioner's order dated May 6, 1969 under Section 19. What the section provides is that if any question arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation or as to the amount or duration of the compensation it shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. There is therefore nothing to justify the argument that the employer's liability to pay compensation under Section 3, in respect of the injury, was suspended until after the F.A.O.No.4815 of 2007 (O&M) : 5 : settlement contemplated by Section 19. The appellant was thus liable to pay compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the appellant, and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary.” This four Judges bench decision appears to have escaped notice in the case of Mubasir Ahmed which in any case appears to have been decided having regard to peculiar facts of its own. Section 3 of the Act gives clear indication that compensation is payable from the date of injury. Non deposit would make the employer liable for penalty and interest. If there is default in payment of compensation, interest must be paid whatever may be the reason for non-payment. It is also held in Ramlal and others v. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Jaipur and others, 1981 LAB. I.C. 1281 and Ram Dulari Kalia v. HPSE Board, 1987 LAB.I.C.748 that compensation falls due within the meaning of Section 4-A on the happening of the accident and liability of payment of interest and penalty arises if so directed, when default is made by the employer in payment of compensation within one month due from the date it falls due. In the instant case, the date of accident was well within the knowledge of the respondent-employees as they were aware of the accident and the death of the deceased on whose behalf the respondents had made this claim. The compensation, thus, fell due on the happening of the accident. Since the compensation was not paid within one month from the date of the accident despite demand, it has been rightly concluded that the compensation would be F.A.O.No.4815 of 2007 (O&M) : 6 : payable within one month from the date of the accident. No justification is seen to interfere in the view taken by the Compensation Commissioner. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. August 18, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE