IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 450 of 2005 Sharad Singh … Appellant Vs Raghunath Singh & another … Respondents Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Anil Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 17.08.2005 passed by the District Magistrate / Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Chamoli in W.C. Case No. 08 of 2003-04, Sharad Singh Vs Raghunath Singh & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant – Sharad Singh was working as a driver in truck No. UP07C/4129. On 27.11.2002, at about 04:00 p.m., the said truck met with an accident at Gocher-Sidauli Road. At the time of the accident, the he was 32 years and age and uses to earn Rs. 2,500/- per month. According to the claimant, he remained in the Jiyoligrant Hospital, Dehradun for a period of 1½ month and he is unable to perform his duty as a driver after this accident. Therefore, he prayed for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Thereafter, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Sri Raghunath Singh – owner of the vehicle in question admitted the factum of the accident. He has further alleged that the claimant/appellant sustained injuries in the accident which took place on 27.11.2002 at Gagragarh, Gochar-Sidauli Motor Road. He has also pleaded that on the 2 date of accident, the vehicle in question was insured with the New India Insurance Company Ltd. He has further alleged that he used to give Rs. 2,500/- per month to Sharad Singh, as salary. Therefore, the liability of compensation, if any, lies upon the Insurance Company. 4. New India Insurance Company Ltd. also contested the claim of the claimant by filing its written statement before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner denying the allegations made in the claim of the appellant/claimant and also denied its liability. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner framed the relevant issues, which were discussed at a great detail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 1,594/- as compensation in favour of the claimant/appellant. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 7. Heard Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anil Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 8. As far as the factum of accident is concerned, it is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the claimant was working as a driver in truck No. UP07C/4129, under the ownership of Raghunath Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the learned 3 Workmen Compensation Commissioner has not taken into account the medical bills of Rs. 97,128/- submitted by the claimant which he had incurred towards his medical treatment. In order to support his version, he has invited my attention towards the provision of Section 3 and 4(d) of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available before me as well as going through the impugned judgment, I do not find force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the claimant/appellant remained under treatment for forty days and was unable to perform his duty. It is also not disputed that the claimant sustained 25% disability. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner considering the provision of Section 4(d)(2) awarded a sum of Rs. 1,594/-, which appears to be just and proper at this stage. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner after considering each and every aspect of the case awarded the amount of compensation, which do not require any interference at this stage. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the interest awarded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner in the impugned award is on lesser side. He has submitted that the interest should not have been less then 12% in any manner, in view of the provision of Workmen Compensation Act. 11. In order to support his version he has invited my attention towards Section 4A(3)(a) of the Workmen Compensation Act which shows that the Workmen 4 Compensation Commissioner shall direct the employer in addition to the amount of arrears, pay simple interest thereon @ 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified in the Central Government, by notification in Official Gazette, on the amount due. 12. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears to me that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has directed that the awarded amount should be paid within a period of one month, failing which the employer or the Insurance Company shall have to pay a simple interest of 9% per annum. The approach adopted by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner in awarding the interest to the claimant appears to be wrong in view of the provision of Section 4A(3)(a), which reads as under:- “4A(3)(a). direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of arrears, pay simple interest thereon @ 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified in the Central Government, by notification in Official Gazette, on the amount due.” 13. I am therefore, of the view that in view of the aforesaid provision, the Compensation Commissioner should have awarded an interest of 12% per annum on the amount of compensation. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified upto the extent that the claimant/appellant is entitled to get Rs. 5 1,594/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of impugned judgment and award, till the date of actual payment, instead of conditional interest awarded as has been awarded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 03.11.2008 ASWAL