Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 126 (RAJ)

Banwarilal Meena v. Ramcharan

2011-01-17

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The only issue that arises in this appeal is whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the interest amount under the Workman Compensation Act to the claimant or not ? 2. Mr. Sangram Singh Solanki, the learned counsel for the appellants, who happen to be the owners of the offending vehicle, has contended that in the case of Kamla Chaturvedi vs. National Insurance Company & Ors. ( (2009) 1 SCC 487 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled this issue once and for all. In that case, the Apex Court had clearly held that in case of a vehicular accident, the provision of M.V. Act would be clearly applicable to a case under the Workman Compensation Act. Thus, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the interest to the claimant. According to the learned counsel, even the present case is a case of vehicular accident. Hence, the ratio of that case is equally applicable to the present case. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Rishipal Agrawal, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has vehemently contended that in the case of P.J. Narayan vs. Union of India & Ors. ( (2006) 5 SCC 200 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had opined that the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay the interest under the Workmen Compensation Act unless there was a contract to that effect. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent, has argued that the interest of the claimant should be protected as he is entitled to get the interest. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as the cases cited at the Bar. 6. The issue is no longer res integra as the same has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamla Chaturvedi (Supra). According to the Apex Court, in case of a vehicular accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the interest. Admittedly, in the present case the accident was also caused by a vehicle. Therefore, obviously the Insurance Company is liable to pay the interest. 7. As far as the judgment of P.J. Narayan (Supra) is concerned, in the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not given any reason for its conclusion. Admittedly, in the present case the accident was also caused by a vehicle. Therefore, obviously the Insurance Company is liable to pay the interest. 7. As far as the judgment of P.J. Narayan (Supra) is concerned, in the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not given any reason for its conclusion. But in the case of Kamla Chaturvedi (Supra), the entire issue has been discussed at length by the Apex Court. Moreover, the case of P.J. Narayan (Supra) is an earlier judgment being a judgment of 2006, whereas the judgment of Kamla Chaturvedi (Supra) is of 2009. Therefore, according to the rules of precedents, this Court is bound by the judgment of Kamla Chaturvedi (Supra). Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the interest amount. 8. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is, hereby, allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the interest amount with the Tribunal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to release the interest amount immediately thereafter.