FAO No.334 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.334 of 2010 . Decided on: February 04, 2011. National Insurance company Ltd. .. Appellant VERSUS Ram Mehar and another. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The main contention of counsel for the appellant is that amount of compensation in the present case has been determined under Section 4(1)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, (for short 'the Act') which is relevant in cases where permanent total disablement results from the injury. . . . 1 FAO No.334 of 2010 Counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case which falls under Section 4 (1)(b)(ii) the Act and that the amount of ` 90,000/- payable under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act cannot be paid under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and presuming the same to be a substantial question of law, carefully considered the arguments in context to the pleadings and evidence produced on the record. A perusal of the claim petition indicates that the appellant had mentioned in para 5 of the petition that the claimant had sustained injuries as well as multiple injuries and fracture and the said fact has not been specifically denied in the reply filed by the employer of the appellant company. Relevant portion of Section 4 of the Act reads as follow: - “4. Amount of compensation.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:-- (a) where death results from the injury an amount equal to fifty per cent. of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of eighty thousand rupees, whichever is more; (b) Where permanent total disablement results . . . 2 FAO No.334 of 2010 from the injury an amount equal to sixty per cent. of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of ninety thousand rupees, whichever is more; Explanation I.--For the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b), "relevant factor", in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due. Explanation II : Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed four thousand rupees his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be four thousand rupees only; (c) where permanent partial disablement results from the injury (i) in the case of an injury specified in Part II of Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury; and . . . 3 FAO No.334 of 2010 (ii) in the case of an injury specified in Schedule I such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury; Explanation I : Where more injuries than one are caused by the same accident the amount of compensation payable under this head shall be aggregated but not so in any case as to exceed the amount which would have been payable if permanent total disablement had resulted from the injuries.” The intention of Legislature from Explanation I, is absolutely clear to make the compensation for injuries under Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act at par in case it is a case of multiple injuries. The Commissioner does not seem to have committed any error in granting compensation for multiple injuries granting maximum amount admissible i.e., ` 90,000/- being maximum one calculated as per formula under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Counsel for the appellant has also contended that the appellant being insurer has been directed to pay interest as calculated from the date of accident on amount of ` 90,000/- whereas it is not permissible as per the judgment in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya & Anr., reported in JT 2006 (5) SC 228. The learned Commissioner relying upon the . . . 4 FAO No.334 of 2010 judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs.Shrinivas Sabata and another, 1976 ACJ 141, has held that the claimant is entitled to interest with effect from the date of one month after the date of accident. I have gone through the judgment New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya & Anr., reported in JT 2006 (5) SC 228, cited by the consel for the appellant in which it has been observed that the rights and obligations between the employer and insured would depend upon the terms of the insurance contract. In the present case, the insurance company has failed to prove on record any clause in the policy which exonerated it from the payment of interest. A similar question arose before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs.Momina Khatum and others, 2008 ACJ 2734. Following the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi, 1998 ACJ 1 (SC), it was observed that the insurance company had failed to prove from the policy that the company stands exonerated from the liability of payment of interest holding that the interest is payable even from the date of accident. In view of said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Commissioner has not acted illegally ini awarding interest from the date of accident. No substantial question of law as required under . . . 5 FAO No.334 of 2010 Section 30 of the Act has been raised. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 04, 2011. rka . . . 6