IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 MFA.No. 201 of 2009() ----------------------------- (WCC.51/2007 of COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, KANNUR) .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY: -------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD KANNUR, REP BY THE MANAGER, KOCHI, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANTS & IST OPPOSITE PARTY: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. A.P.KUHIRAMAN S/O.KANNAN.P, ALANTHATT PUTHIYA VEEDU P.O.PAVANNOOR MOTTA,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. P.V.RUGMINI, W/O.KUNHIRAMAN, ALANTHATT PUTHIYA VEEDU P.O.PAVANOOR MOTTA,KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. M.SEEMA W/O.LATE SHAJI, VENUGOPALAM, NADAL, P.O.EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. ANUGRAHA, D/O. LATE SHAJI, VENUGOPALAM, NADAL, P.O.EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. SHIBU S/O.LATE SHAJI, VENUGOPALAM, NADAL, P.O.EDAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. A.ASSAINAR S/O.BEERAN, ATHIYATTIL HOUSE KEEZHARIYOOR .PO, QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DIST. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, ALONG WITH MFA NO. 202 OF 2009 MFA NO. 203 OF 2009 & MFA NO.211 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.F.A.(WCC) No.201/2009, M.F.A.No.202/2009, M.F.A.No.203/2009 & M.F.A.(WCC) No.211 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. In all these appeals a common substantial question of law is purported to be raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. The appellants in these cases have been mulcted with interest at 12 percent from the date of accident under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants in M.F.A.Nos.202/2009 and 203/2009. The other counsel adopted his argument. Sri.George Cherian learned counsel for the appellants would submit that indeed a substantial question of law exists. He would rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd.Nasir and Another {2009 (6) SCC 280} to contend that Commissioner was in error in awarding interest at 12 percent from the date of the accident. Learned counsel was M.F.A.201& con.cases -2- confronted with the position of law as a result of the Division Bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rekha (2007 (4) KLT 386) taking the view that there is nothing illegal in mulcting the insurance company with liability from the date of accident. He contended that the said decision is incorrect. He would take us through the decision of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Shrinivas Sabata and another (AIR 1976 SC 222) and he would contend that the said decision turned on the special facts as is evident from para 8 of the judgment. 3. We have been following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rekha (2007 (4) KLT 386). When there is a conflict between the decisions of the Apex Court rendered by Benches of varying strength it is a settled principle of law that as far as High Court is concerned it should follow the decision of a Bench having larger strength. It is this principle which has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rekha (2007 (4) KLT 386). We further notice that the principle enunciated in the said decision M.F.A.201& con.cases -3- namely that interest is payable from the date of the accident would appear to have been holding the field for a long period of time. Therefore, it may not be fully correct on the part of the appellants to contend that the decision turned on the special facts present in the Larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Shrinivas Sabata and another (AIR 1976 SC 222). In the decision of the Apex Court repelling the argument that compensation will not fall due under Section 4A (3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act till it is settled by the Commissioner it was held that the employer becomes liable as soon as the injury is caused to the workmen. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment reads as follows: “7. Section 3 of the Act deals with the employer's liability for compensation. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the employer shall be liable to pay compensation if “personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment”. It was not the case of the employer that the right to compensation was taken away under sub-section (5) of Section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil court for damages, in respect of the injury, against the employer or any other person. The employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of the employment. It is therefore futile to contend that M.F.A.201& con.cases -4- the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioner's order dated May 6, 1969 under Section 19. What the section provides is that if any question arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation or as to the amount or duration of the compensation it shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. There is therefore nothing to justify the argument that the employer's liability to pay compensation under Section 3 in respect of the injury was suspended until after the settlement contemplated by Section 19. The appellant was thus liable to pay compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the appellant and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary.” 4. Therefore, it is this principle which is followed by this Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rekha (2007 (4) KLT 386). In fact, in the decision of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd.Nasir and Another {2009 (6) SCC 280} the Apex Court has taken the view that interest is to be paid from the date of the petition. But, we notice that the said decision is rendered by a Smaller Bench and there is no reference to the Larger Bench decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Shrinivas Sabata and another (AIR 1976 SC 222). In such circumstances, we feel that we should follow the Division Bench decision in National M.F.A.201& con.cases -5- Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Rekha (2007 (4) KLT 386) and thereby follow the Larger Bench decision of the Apex Court. We see no merit in these appeals. The appeals fail and they are dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeals, all pending interlocutory applications are dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS