i < IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH c^^1 AT BILASPUR l^£ APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS ^\.x^ 2> s--' ^^' ..^;^° ^ M.A.(C.) No...19<^^..../2010 1) Brijlal Netam aged about 60 years, S/o Late Samaru Ram Netaai Smt. Kaitin Bai Aged about 55 ,^s- A >^ ^" years, W/o Brijlal Netam .<^'rJ^ 3) smt Bhuneshwari Netam aged about 25 years, W/o Late Toman Lal Netam, 4) Harsh Kumar Netam aged about 3 years, S/o Late Toman Lal Netam, Appellant No.4 minor through legal guardian mother Smt. Bhuneshwari bai Netaxn AU are R/o Vmage Khola, Post Dhamdha, TahsH Patan, District Durg (C.G.) t RESPONDENTS : Versus 1) M/s Jai Interprises Partaership Firm, through Partner Shri J.P. Sbah, R/o Near Chhatta Factory Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) 2) Chhattisgarh State Board, Through : Engineer 0,85 M. Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha (C.G.) Electricily Exeucutive Department & District ^^L ^ ^-^'' 3) The Oriental Insumace Company Limited, registered and head office Oriental House PB No. 7037-A- 25/37, Asif AU Road New Delhi 11002 Through : Divisional Manager Divisional Of&ce No.2, Saiaagar Raipur and Divisional Manager Divisional Office Malviya Nagar Durg TahsU and District Durg (C.G.) MEMO OF MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF WORKMEN COMEBENSATION ACT FOR ENHANCEMENT OF CCDMPENSATION AWARD )K n ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) No. 306 of 2010 APPBLLANTS RESPONDENTS Brijlal Netam and ofhers Versus M/s Jai Enterprises Partn.ersMp Firm and othei^. SINCiLE BBNCH: HON. SHRI N.K.AGARWAL, J. PRESENT:- Shri C.R. Sahu, counsel for fhe appellants. Shri Yogesh Pandey, counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Jitendra Pali, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri H.P.Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (22-7-2011) This is claimants' appeal against fhe award dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Durg (for short <ftie Commissioner^ m case No. 94/WCAct/Fatal/2005. 2. The leamed Commissioner, on close scrutiny of fhe evidence led in fhe case held: ftie accident arose out of and during the course of employment in which late Tomanlal Netam has died of electric shock in the said accident and awarded Rs.2,20,566/- as compensation in favour of fhe appellants/clatmants; fastened fhe liability to pay amount of compensation on respondent No.S/Oriental Insurance Company Ltmited whfle directing fhat it shall deposit fhe amount of compensation withtn one monfh from the date of ^ judgment. It was also directed fhat in default, fhe amoimt of compensation shaU cany simple interest at 10% per annum. 3. This appeal was admitted on the foflowing substantial question oflaw by fhis Court on 25.03.2010: "Whether the leamed Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in not awarding interest on fhe awarded amount in tenns of Section 4-A ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?" 4. Shri C.R.Sahu, leamed counsel appearmg for fhe appellants would submit: fhe leamed Commissioner went wrong m not awarding interest in terms of mandatory provisions contained under Section 4A(3)(a) offhe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short <the Acf), fherefore, fhe appeal deseryes to be allowed on this count 5. On the other hand, Shri H.P.Agrawal, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 supported fhe order and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, fhe amount of compensation is just and proper compensation and needs no interference. 6. Admittedly, death of deceased Tomanlal Netam arose out of and in fhe course of employment under respondent No. 1. It is also not in dispute fhat respondent No.S/Oriental Insurance Company Limited has iindertaken the risk of labourers by issuing policy ofinsiirance under the Act 7. As per Section 4A(3)(a) ofthe Act, where any employer is in defaiilt in paying the compensation due under this Act <24 within one month from fhe date it fell due, the Commissioner shaU-direct that fhe employer shaU, in addition to the amount of fhe arrears, pay simple interest fhereon at fhe rate of tw^elve percent per annum or at such higher rate not exceedtng the maximum of fhe lending rates of any schedule bank as may be specified by fhe Central Govemment, by notification in the Of&cial Gazette, on fhe amount due. 8. A bare penisal of fhe above provision would reveal that the provision is mandatoiy in nature. Once the employer is found liable for payment of compensation, in such a situation, the claimants shaU also be entitied for interest firom the date when it fell due. 9. Division Bench of this Court in case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hariram & Others (MAC No. 1588 of 2009, decided on 8A March, 10), has held in para 14 as under: "15. We are not required to dUate much on the above issue in view of the recent dictiim of fhe Apex Court in fhe case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mohd. Nasir and Anofher, reported m 2009 (6) SCC 280 wherein after considering fhe decision of fhe Apex Court in fhe case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Mubastr Ahmed and anofher, it was held in para 47: "47. The second question which arises for consideration is with regard to fhe payment of interest. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that interest would be from fhe date of - -^ np default and not from the date of award of compensation." 10. In view of dictum of above referred jud^nent, and looking to the mandatory nature of provisions contained in Section 4A(3)(a) of fhe Act, fhe Commissioner ought to have granted 12 percent mterest per annum from ttie date of application on fhe amount ofaward. 11. For the forgoing, fhe substantial question of law framed is answered m affirmative. The appeal is allowed in part Apart fix>m amount awarded by fhe Commissioner, fhe appellants are also entiUed for the interest @ 12 percent per annum from fhe date of application. 12. The insLu'ance company is granted fhree month's tune to deposit the above interest amount. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge \ ^^