A.^-^. HtGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH . CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J,& HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. M.A.fO.No. 1588 of 2009 Appellant Insurer/Respondent No.2 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,ICJCI Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra l(East) Mumbai, through its Legal Manager, 3rd Floor, Lal Ganga Shopping Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur(CG). Respondents Claimants VERSUS Hariram, Son of Shri Salig Ram, agedabout51 years ^ Smt Uma Bai, Wife of Shri Hariram, aged about 50 years Both residents of VHIage Jamgaon (M), Post Jamgaon (M), Tahsil Patan, District Durg (CG) Harish Shukla, son of Shri Amarnath Shukla, aged about 36 years, resident of Shukla Saw Mills, Bajrang Chowk, Kumhari, District Durg(CG) (Employer) ^emorandum of apDeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's ComDensation Act. 1923 Present: Shri Amrito Das, counsel for fhe appellant. Shri P.R. Patankar, counsel for respondents No.1&2 ORDER (8thMarch,2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. By allowing I.A.No.3 of 2010, the document filed along with this application is taken on record. 2) Leamedcounsei for the parties are heard on I.A.No.1 of 2009, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 3) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant/lnsurance Company has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 4) I.A.No.1 of 2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5) On due consideration, I.A.No. 2 of 2009 (s allowed and the appeliant/lnsurance Company is permitted to incorporate the following as additional substantial question of law in the memo of appeal: "Where the claimants are the old parents, whether the relevant factor has to be apptied on the basis of the age of the deceased or on the basis ofthe mean age ofthe parents/ claimants, whichever being iower?" 6) Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appelEant is heard on admission. .7) This is insurer's appeal against the impugned award dated 03.01.2009, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's ^^•^-^ Compensation/Labour Court, Durg, in Case No.177AA/C Act/Fatal/2007. 8) Deceased Om Prakash was working as Truck Driver in the employment of respondent No.3 Harish Shukla. Respondents No.1 Hariram and No.2 Smt. Uma Bai, unfortunate parents of deceased Om Prakash (aged about 29 years) claimed compensation of Rs.4,19,840/- with interest and penaJty, for his death in the accident, during the course of his employment, on 29.10.2007. The accident occurred when the Truck over-turned in an attempt to save acyclist. 9) The Commissioner vide impugned award dated 03.01.2009 has directed the appellanVinsurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.3,1 1,970/- as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the daim petition till the date ofactua! payment. 10) Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appeiiant vehemently argued that the Commissioner haserred in awarding excessive compensation of Rs.3,11,970/- and in directing payment of interest from the date of filing ofthe claim petition. 11) According to the appellant/ Insurance Company, foi!owing two substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal: - "1) Whether theCommissioner for Workmen's Compensation has erred in directing the .....^, ^ appellant to pay a simple interest at the rate of 9% annually from the date of presentation of the claim application instead of the date on which the compensation feil due? 2) Where the claimantsare the old parents, whether the relevant factor has to be applied on thebasis of the age ofthe deceased or on the basisof the mean age;ofthe parents / claimants, whichever being lower?" 12) So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner is concerned, the same apparently is assessed on the basis of the factor value prescribed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, taking into account the age ofthe deceased and his income. The assessment of compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act does not leave any room for discretion either with the Commissjoner 6r the Appellate Court. As such, the appellant's challenge to the quantum of compensation cannot betreated asa question oflaw much less a substantial question of law. 13) So far as the question relating to the date from which the interest is payabte, Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the dicta of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mubasir Ahmed and another, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 349 and in the case of Kamia Chaturvedi vs. National Insurance Company and others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 487, submitted that the ^ Commissioner has erred jn directing payment of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The tearned counsel further submitted that interest ought to have been made payable from the date of award. 14) 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 vs. Mohd. Nasir 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 vs. 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." 15) In view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Gourt in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. IVIohd. Nasir and another (supra), the question relating to the date from which the interest would be payable also does not survive for decision as substantial question of iaw. 16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fited by the Insurer is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. r sd/- i Sd/- 1 1 RJS. Chandrakar i Ouefjustice 1 i Judge