Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 234 (JK)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Antar Singh

2007-10-30

J.P.SINGH

body2007
1. Directed against award dated 30th of January, 2006 of Commissioner Workmens Compensation Act, Jammu, this appeal of United India Insurance Company Limited questions learned Commissioners finding, on facts, when he accepts Antar Singh, respondent No.1s claim of compensation for having suffered injuries during the course of his employment as a cleaner with respondent No.2s vehicle bearing registration no. JK02H-2685, besides the award of interest on the compensation amount of Rs.5,16,672/- @ 7.5% per annum. 2. Mr. R.P. Jamwal, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that awarding of interest by the Commissioner on the awarded amount was impermissible because the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 does not vest any jurisdiction in the Commissioner to award interest on the awarded amount, and that liability to pay interest would arise only if the awarded amount was not paid within a period of thirty days. He refers to National Insurance Company Limited v. Mubasir Ahmed and another, reported as AIR 2007 SC, 1298, to support his submission. 3. His further submission is that in the absence of any documentary evidence on records, the oral evidence led by the respondent could not be believed by the Commissioner to accept respondent No.1s plea that he had been working as a cleaner with the Truck when while putting Tarpaulin over the loaded truck, he fell down and suffered injuries near Tamatar More, Kud. 4. While refuting the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sunil Malhotra appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that Insurance Company had failed to lead any evidence to controvert the evidence led by the claimant and in that view of the matter, finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner cannot be assailed by the appellant in the appeal in view of the provisions of Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 which permit appeal against Commissioners award only when a substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. Learned Counsel submits that the award being a money decree, award of interest was permissible under law. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. I am not impressed with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant insofar it questions the factual finding of the Commissioner which is based on the appraisal of evidence led by respondent No.1 in the case. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. I am not impressed with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant insofar it questions the factual finding of the Commissioner which is based on the appraisal of evidence led by respondent No.1 in the case. Having led no evidence to controvert the evidence produced by the claimant proving his employment as a cleaner with respondent No.2 and his suffering accident during the course of the employment, the appellant cannot dispute the factual finding of the Commissioner on the plea that no documentary evidence had been produced by the claimant to support his claim of employment as a cleaner with respondent No.2. 6. Oral evidence is a permissible mode to prove an issue of fact. Merely because no documentary evidence had been produced in a case, would not deprive a Tribunal, Authority, or a Court to accept it as evidence in support of any fact which it seeks to prove, if such evidence otherwise inspires confidence. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not projected any such infirmity in the oral evidence led by the claimant which may discredit his claim of his employment as a cleaner with respondent No.2s truck. 8. Even otherwise, factual finding recorded by the Commissioner, which does not appear to be perverse in any manner whatsoever, cannot be questioned in this appeal as reappraisal of evidence by this Court may not be permissible in view of the provisions of Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act which permits an appeal only on a substantial question of law, which this plea of the appellant does not involve. 9. I, however, find sufficient force in learned counsels submission that the Commissioner had erred in awarding interest on the awarded amount @ 7.5% per annum. This is so because Section 4 (A)-3(A) contemplates payment of interest only when it becomes due. The expression "falls due" occurring in Section 4(A) came up for consideration before Honble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited v. Mubasir Ahmed and another, reported as AIR 2007 SC, 1298 where while dealing with the question, it was held as follows:- "Interest is payable under Section 4-A(3) if there is default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due. The question of liability under Section 4-A was deal with by this Court in Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh (1998(9) SCC 134). By Amending Act, 14 of 1995, Section 4-A of the Act was amended, inter alia, fixing the minimum rate of interest to be simple interest @ 12%. In the instant case, the accident took place after the amendment and, therefore, the rate of 12% as fixed by the High Court cannot be faulted. But the period as fixed by it is wrong. The starting point is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due. Obviously it cannot be the date of accident. Since no indication is there as when it becomes due, it has to be taken to be the date of adjudication of the claim. This appears to be so because Section 4-A(1) prescribes that compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The compensation becomes due on the basis of adjudication of the claim made. The adjudication under Section 4 in some cases involves the assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner. Unless adjudication is done, question of compensation becoming due does not arise. The position becomes clearer on a reading of sub-section (2) of Section 4-A. It provides that provisional payment to the extent of admitted liability has to be made when employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed. The crucial expression is "falls due". Significantly, legislature has not used the expression "from the date of accident". Unless there is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise." 10. Award of interest by the learned Commissioner, on the awarded amount cannot thus be justified, for the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to award any interest while passing an award. Imposition of interest by Commissioner may be permissible only if the amount falling due i.e. after the issuance of the award, was not paid within a period of one month. 11. In view of the law laid-down by Honble Supreme Court of India, the impugned award, awarding interest @ 7.5% per annum on the awarded amount cannot thus be sustained and justified. To this extent, the award of the Commissioner, therefore, needs to be modified. 12. 11. In view of the law laid-down by Honble Supreme Court of India, the impugned award, awarding interest @ 7.5% per annum on the awarded amount cannot thus be sustained and justified. To this extent, the award of the Commissioner, therefore, needs to be modified. 12. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed by modifying the impugned award of the Commissioner deleting that portion of the award whereby it awards interest @ 7.5% on the awarded amount, to respondent No.1. 13. The Commissioner shall accordingly release the awarded amount in terms of this judgment in favour of respondent No.1 and the excess amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall be released in its favour.