Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 831 (HP)

Sudhir Kumar v. Anita

2010-05-18

V.K.AHUJA

body2010
JUDGMENT : V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral) This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act against the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondents no. 1 to 3, here-in-after referred to as the claimants filed a petition under Section 3 of Workmens Compensation Act for payment of compensation in regard to the death of one Janak Raj. It was alleged by the claimants that claimant No. 1 Anita is the widow of deceased, while claimants No. 2 and 3 are the minor son and daughter of late Janak Raj, who died in an accident. The deceased Janak Raj had been employed by respondent No. 1 Sudhir Kumar, present appellant, here-in-after referred to as respondent No. 1, to drive his truck/Tanker on a monthly wages of Rs. 4000/-. The deceased was on his way back to Ambala and died in an accident of Truck No. HP-19-3266, which fell into a deep gorge near village Gaalu on 27.12.2005. No amount of compensation was paid as required under the provisions of the Act. The age of the deceased was alleged as 39 years and accordingly, the claim petition was filed. 3. The respondents disputed the allegations made in the petition. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act:- "1. Whether the deceased Sh. Janak Raj has been employed by respondent No. 1 on a monthly wages of Rs. 4000/- as alleged by the petitioner? O.P.P. 2. Whether the deceased Sh. Janak Rajs death has been caused out of and in the course of his unemployment? O.P.P. 3. If issue supra are affirmative, what is the amount of compensation and whether the petitioner are entitled to receive such compensation? O.P.P. 4. Whether the Tanker bearing No. HP-19-3266 was being driven against the terms and condition of Insurance Policy and if so its effect? O.P.R. 5. Relief." 4. On conclusion of the case, the claimants were held entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,73,800/- as compensation payable to the petitioners/claimants. It was further directed that an amount of Rs. 1,74,431/- shall be payable as simple interest at the rate of 12% to the petitioners by the employer. Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company, the insurer shall indemnify the actual amount i.e. Rs. 3,73,800/- as compensation payable to the petitioners/claimants. It was further directed that an amount of Rs. 1,74,431/- shall be payable as simple interest at the rate of 12% to the petitioners by the employer. Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company, the insurer shall indemnify the actual amount i.e. Rs. 3,73,800/-, whereas the interest liability was fastened upon the employer/respondent No. 1 i.e. Sudhir Kumar (present appellant). 5. Being aggrieved by the order directing the payment of interest by the appellant/owner, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 6. The appeal is being admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the learned Commissioner was not correct in fastening the responsibility of interest on the employer in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court?" 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission that the interest is not payable by the employer has relied upon a decision in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others, 1998 ACJ 1 , wherein it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Insurance Company is liable for the interest imposed under Workmens Compensation Act. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saroj Kumari and another, 2009 ACJ 2512, wherein also relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court, it was held that the interest at the rate of 12% is payable from one month after the date of the accident upto the date of award. Similar observations were also made in another decision of this Court in Paras Ram Sharma v. Rajbansh Singh and others, 2009 ACJ 2182 . 9. It follows from the above discussion that the interest is payable by the Insurance Company but only correction liable to be made is that it is from one month after the date of accident upto the date of the award. 10. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed to this extent and the employer/respondent No. 1 Sudhir Kumar is not liable to pay interest, which shall be paid by the Insurance Company as detailed above. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed accordingly. 10. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed to this extent and the employer/respondent No. 1 Sudhir Kumar is not liable to pay interest, which shall be paid by the Insurance Company as detailed above. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed accordingly. The amount in question be deposited by the insurance Company within a period of two months from today along with interest up-to-date. There is no order as to costs. A copy of judgment be sent to the learned Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act, for information along with record. 11. In view of the disposal of main appeal, all the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.