IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 MFA.(WCC)No. 96 of 2008() -------------------- WCC.197/2004 of COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMNPENSATION,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY: -------------- THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOLLANNUR. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.3235, OMANA BUILDINGS, JEWS STREET, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI - 682 035. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S)APPLICANT AND 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY: --------------- 1. JINSON MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, MANGALATH HOUSE, PALAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR. 2. SHIJU P.A., S/O.ANANDAN, PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR. ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN FOR R1 SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN FOR R1 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A. (W.C.C.) NO. 96 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. With effect from what date is interest payable under Section 4A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")? This is the short question that is posed for consideration before us in this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Kamla Chaturvedi v. National Insurance Co., 2008(4) K.L.T. 862 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed, 2007(3)K.L.T. 26 (SC) to advance the contention that in a case of disputed liability, the amount of compensation can be held to have fallen due only on the date of the award. That is the date which is to be reckoned as the date of adjudication, it is contended. Consequently, it is contended that in the impugned award where direction is issued to M.F.A. NO.96/2008 2 make payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident is wrong. The same is liable to be interfered with, it is contended. 3. We are afraid, the contention cannot be accepted. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the same question earlier in the decision reported in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rekha, 2007(4) K.L.T. 386. The Division Bench headed by Justice J.B. Koshy in that decision relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in K.S.E.B. v. Valsala, 1999(3) K.L.T.348 (SC) and the decision reported in Pratap Narain v. Shrinivas, A.I.R. 1976 S.C.222, has taken a definite view that those decisions must prevail over the subsequent decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed, 2007(3)K.L.T. 26 (SC). In Kamla Chaturvedi's Case (supra), we do not find any further discussion on the topic and the decision in Mubasir Ahmed's case (supra) is extracted and followed. The subsequent reiteration of Mubasir Ahmed's case in Kamla Chaturvedi's Case does not, therefore, in any way affect the approach made by the Division Bench of this Court relying on the earlier binding precedents. M.F.A. NO.96/2008 3 4. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench earlier in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha, 2007(4) K.L.T. 386. The compensation amount under the Act must be held to have fallen due on the date of the accident. This is clearly discussed in K.S.E.B. v. Valsala, 1999(3) K.L.T.348 (SC). While attempting to ascertain the quantum of amount payable, in the light of the subsequent amendment, if the amount were to be held to fall due only on the date of adjudication, the claimants will be entitled to get the compensation prescribed under the amended statute. To obviate this, it was held that compensation must be held to fall due only on the date of the accident. Section 4A(3) of the Act must in these circumstances be read and understood to mean that the amount falls due on the date of the accident and consequently interest is liable to be paid from the date of the accident. If we were to hold that the date of the award is the date on which the amount falls due (and not even the date of the application before the Commissioner) that would lead to the preposterous consequence that the claimant will suffer for the delay in disposal of the claim by the Commissioner. That would be an incentive to recalcitrant employers to protract the proceeding. Such an approach would lead to unjust results also. We are bound by the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.F.A. NO.96/2008 4 Rekha, 2007(4)K.L.T. 386 and we are not persuaded to agree that the matter deserves to be referred to a larger bench for consideration. 5. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.F.A. NO.96/2008 5 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.F.A.(WCC)NO.96/2008 JUDGMENT 25th February, 2009 M.F.A. NO.96/2008 6