HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR Misc. AQQeal No. 814 OF 2002 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 3O OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT. {33: Hon'bie Mr. NK. AqarwalLgJ resent : Shri S$ Rajput, Advocate for appellant. l None for respondent No. i. I Shri Neeraj Pradhan, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 13‘“ day cf April, 2010) 1. The instant appeal is directed against the award dated 10.07.2002, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court. Raipur, in case No. 8-2291WC Act/Non-Fatal/2001, wherehy and whereunder an amount of Rs. 62,107/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of appellant. The brief facts ofthe case are as under : The appeiiant suetained injuriee in the accident on 16.06.2001, which arose out of and during the course of employment. \ VL‘ P Aggellantl‘ Deolal Soni, son of Late Ki$un‘=Sohi, Applicant aged abaut 45 years, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Pandari, Raipur Tam/n, TahSil and District Raipur, CG. Versus Résgondents 1‘ Charanjeet Singh son of $ardar N¢n- Singh, Owner of Vehioie No. MP 23- gg‘plicants ‘ DA—3907 Cio Bhasin Road Lines, Transport Nagar, Tatrbandh, Raipur, Town, Tahsi! & Di$trict Raipur (CG). 2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisiona! Manager, Divisional Office No. 2, Chawia Compiex, ‘ Devendra Nagar Road! Raipur, Town & District Raipur‘ CG (insurer of the Vehioie Nor MP 23-DA-37D9 vide insurance Policy No. i i 53600199522001 ) The fact of accident was kncswn to the employer since inception. The appeliant preferred a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compeneation; Raipur, claiming‘ccmpensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The respondent N0. 1 by fiiing his reply in the easei admitted the factum of accident; injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident; and aise pleaded that the appellant was getting salary 0f Rs. 4000f- per month. l The respondent No. 2, by filing its written statement; denied the averments made in the claim petition. HoWever, the facturn of insurance was admitted. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, on a close scrutiny of evidence led, material plaeed and submissions made, held said accident arise out of and during the course of employment; appeilant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 15 percent; awarded Rs. 62,107/u as compensation in favour of the claimants holding respondents jointly and severally liable for its payment. However, the Commissioner did not award interest on the amount of compensation from the date it fell due. Shri SS Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the appellant iwould submit that the Commissioner went wrong in not awarding the interest. It wasincumbent upon the Commissioner y to award interest in terms of mandatory provisions contained under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, ;. 1923 (for short ‘the Act’), and appeal deserve to be allowed on , this count. WM v» at / 4. On’ the other hand, Shri Neeraj Pradhan, learned counse! appearing for the respondent No. 2 supported the order and. submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner has not erred in not awarding interest. 5.; i have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused i i the award impugned. 6.; This court admitted this appeai on the foiiowing substantiat question of law: ,V‘ “Whether the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in not awarding the interest in terms of Section 3(a) of Section 4-A of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923?” 7i Undisputediy, the fact of accident was known to the respondent No. 1 since its inception. it is also not in dispute that the amount of compensation has not been deposited by the respondent No. 1 with the Commissioner within statutory period ’ - ofthirty days from the date of accident. 8. As per Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act, where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act withtn one month from the date it felt due, the Commissioner shatt- I, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears; pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent l per annum or at such higher rate notexceeding the maximum l of the lending rates of any schedule bank as may be specified 1 by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due. 91. A bare perusal of the above provision would reveal that the l provision is mandatory in nature. Once the employer is found /', ‘TgA ‘ Sahu Hable for payment of compensation, then, the daimants shau also be entitled for interest from the date when it fell due. 10. DIVISion Bench of this Court In case of iClCf Lombard Ceneraf Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanram & Others (MAC No 1588 of 2009, decided on gt“ March, 10), has held in para 14 as under: “15. We are not required to dilate much on the above issue in View of the recent dictum of the Apex Court In the case of Oriental insurance Company Limited v Mohd Naslr and Another reported In 2009 (6) SCC 280 wherein after considering the deCISIon of the Apex Court In the case of National insurance Company Limited v Mubasir Ahmed and another, it was held In para 47 . “47 The second question which arises for conSIderatIon Is With regard to the payment of interest. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that interest would be from the date of default and not from the date of award of compensation." in view of dictum of above referred judgment, and looking to the mandatory nature of provisions contained in Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act, the Commissioner ought to have granted 12 percent interest per annum from the date of application on the amount of award. For the forgoing, the substantial question of law framed is answered in affirmativehThe appeal is allowed in part. Apart from amount awarded by the Commissioner, the appellant is also entitled for the interest @ 12 percent per annum from the date of application. The insurance company is granted three month’s time to deposit the above interest amount. No order asto costs. . .___._..?—I r, Sty. , _ N. K. Agarwaii g- Judge J ‘, f