IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AN. VENUGOPALA GOWDA MISCELLANfS FIRST APPEAL NO 2o962’2Qi1IwcI BETWEEN: 1. KUMARI SHOBHA KRISHNAJIRAO SURYAVANSHI AGE: 18 YEARS 0CC: STUDENT R/O 2237 BOVIGALLI BELGAUM DIST: BELGAUM 2. KUMAR PRAVIN S/O KRISHNAJIRAO SURYAVANSHI AGE: 20 YEARS 0CC: STUDENT R/O 2237 BOVIGALLI BELGAUM DIST: BELGAUM (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADV.) 1 SRI. LAHO sf0 LAXMAN DESAI AGE: 50 YEARS 0CC: BUSiNESS R/O SIDDESHWAR NAGAR TA5V USGAON GOA NORTH 403 110 2. THE MANAOFP THff UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. DR. GUNDEKAR BUILDING TUSK POND/I GOA - 403 110. (BY SRT RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADV FOR R2;. RI: NOTICE DISPENSED WITH This Miscellaneous First Appeal is flied under Section 30(1) of the W.C.Act, 1923, against the judgment and order dated 18.11.2010 passed In KAPAKA/SR-106/2005 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division-Il, Belgaum, seeking enhancement of compensation. This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following: - JUDGMENT Though the appeal Is listed for orders on admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, the matter is heard for final disposal. 2. Claim petition filed by the appellants against the respondents under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 was allowed in part and the respondents were directed to pay compensatIon of Rs.3,34,065/- with interest. The respondents have not been questioned the said Award. The claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Sri H.R. Latur, learned advocate appearing for the appellants contended that, the Commissioner Is not \ 3 justified in reckoning the wages of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. and in determining the compensation payable at Rs.3,34,065/-. Learned counsel further contended that, the Commissioner Is not justified in awarding interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of adjudication. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1422. 4. Sri Ravindra R. Mane, learned advocate appearing for the 2” respondent, on the other hand, contended that, the Commissioner has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly reckoned wages at Rs.3,000/- p.m. Learned counsel submitted that, the interest ordered to be paid at 7.5% p.a. from 23.11.2005 till 18.11.2010 Is justified In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ORIENTAL !VSLJRANC’E COMPANY LiMITED Vs. MOHD. NASIR AYE) ANOTHER REPORTED IN AIR 2009 SCW3717. 4 5. Keeping in view the rival contentions and the record of the case which I have perused, the questions for determination are: (I) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is justified in reckoning the wages ofthe deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month? (ii) Whether the Commissioner is correct in not awarding interest at 12% p.a. after 30 days of the occurrence of the accident till the date of realisation? Re: Point No.(l): 6. The claimants / appellants in the claim statement have stated the wages of the deceased was Rs.3,000/- p.m. However, they claimed payment of bhatya at Rs.50/- per day. The claimants did not produce any credible evidence either with regard to the wages or the daily bhatya paid by the employer. In the circumstances, the Commissioner being left with no other alternative, taking note of the decision reported at ILR 2008 (2) KAR.L.J. 535, has reckoned the wages of the 5 deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. The appreciation of evidence by the Commissioner is neither perverse nor illegal. Hence, the findings of fact recorded in the Impugned order do not caii for interference. Re: ooint No.(ii): 7. In the case of ALEEMUDDIN & ORS. Vs. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE cc LTD. reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1422, the question of law framed for consideration reads thus: ‘Where an employee receives personal injuries in a motor accident arising out of and in the course of his employment while working in the motor vehicle of the employer, whether the insurance company. which has insured the employer? owner of the vehicle against the third party accident claims under the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and against the claim for compensation arising out of the proceedings under the WorkmeWs Compensation Act 1923 in connection with such motor accident, is liable to pay the interest in respect of the award passed against the insured employer u/s.4- A(3) ofthe Act and if so, from what date?’ The said question has been answered as follows: —4 6 Kcepmr in mind the ratio 01 law laid down in the case referred to supra. it is just and necessary to state that the .lareer Bench decision in the case of PR.Y A.P NA.RAIN SINGI! DLO (SUPRA) appears to have not been brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. when the decision in the case of NATIONA F INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ss MI B \SIR \HMED \\l) K \MAL \ (II \ If RF Dl S ( Al it PR \ ‘ei dJ iJ Thc ud uo kusion iw 1w Benches of Iwo .Hon’ble Judees of the Apex Court. whereas. the ratio ot Ian laid down in the case of Pratap Narain Sinch J)eo’s case, \ hich has been folion ed in the subsequent cases. was rendered b a quorum of more than two I Ion’ He Judges. Lnder Article 141 of the Constitution of india, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all the Courts in the country. However, in the event if there is a conflict on the question of law in two decisions, while considering the question of law on the point and interpretation of statute, this Court is required to follow the course of action as has been laid down by the larger Full Bench of this Court in the case of Govindanaik (.., Kalauhatini supra I. 9. in iew of the ratio of law laid don n h the Apex Court n the case of P/UI 1:1 P 3C4RALV NUt Al f/Pt) A SLP!Li .. which is the hindine precedent in regard to the expression ‘ldl I due” appearing in Sectiom4-A 1) and (3) of the Act, tEl lowing and applying the said. ratio to the facts of the pre.sent case, it has to he held that th.e amount of compensation becomes due o.n e.xpiry of one month from t.he date of acc.ident and if the same. is not paid or deposited, interest becomes payable after the expiry of one month period Horn the date of the workmen sustaining .i.niuries due to an acsidcnt n tic coni ol his: enirlos meat and aLes :0) days 1T(fli the date of oruer;an aut tssed by the o I ty ( ‘iJ ‘a ‘. , , -. ,0 U I e.xplrv of 30 days fron the date ot the accident. Hence., the ontcn’ a at the Has I ounsci to 5 o ,ndLnt a’ unacceptable. Substantia.i stion of law stands anawered according.lia” 7 8. The ratio of law noticed supra clearly applies to the case on hand. In the circumstances, the respondents are liable to pay interest at 12% p.a. on the compensation amount of Rs.3,34,065/- with effect from 07.07.2005 I.e., 30 days after the occurrence of the accIdent till the date of deposit. In the result, the appeal Is allowed In part. The impugned Award is modified. The compensation amount of Rs.3,34,065/- will carry Interest at 12% p.a. with effect from 07.07.2005 till the date of deposit before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation concerned, by the respondents. Draw modified Award. Sd!- JUDGE sac*