Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 261 (MP)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Sandeep

2011-02-23

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT J.K. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arising out of the award dated 4th July, 2008 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Indore, in Case No. 103/2004 W.C.N.F., whereby the compensation has been awarded to the tune of Rs. 1,81,440/- and directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application. 2. Shri Sanjay Mehra, learned Counsel for the Appellant, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir and Another, reported in (2009) 4 A.C.C. 891 : 2009 (3) T.A.C. 598 (S.C.), contends that it is true that the grant of interest from the date of application has not been denied but the provisions of Section 4-A(3) of the Act would be attracted only when it is settled. 3. Per contra, Shri Sameer Athawale, learned Counsel for Respondents, by placing reliance on the decision of four Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Another, reported in (1976) 1 S.C.C. 289 : 1976 T.A.C. 348, contends that the argument regarding not fallen due until it is settled by the Apex Court is wrong. By-placing reliance on the another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board and Another v. Valsala K. and Another, (1999) 8 S.C.C. 254 : 2000 (1) T.A.C. 6, it is contended by him that the Apex Court while considering the rate of interest irrespective to the amended provision was not found likely to be interfered with. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the injuries received by the workman, compensation has been awarded, therefore, interference may not be made by this Court. 4. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that the injured was only 20 years of age and suffered 45% permanent disability. The question with respect to fell due as specified under Section 4-A(3) of the Act may be considered in some appropriate cases, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the interest as awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation is not required to be interfered with. The question with respect to fell due as specified under Section 4-A(3) of the Act may be considered in some appropriate cases, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the interest as awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation is not required to be interfered with. It is, however, to be observed here that the decision in the case of Mohd. Nasir and Anr. (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case wherein the Court directed the application of the provisions of Section of the Act from the date of filing of the application. Simultaneously, this Court has held that the interest from the date of filing of the applicant cannot be denied. But, in the facts of the case, the interest was awarded @ 7.5%. But, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the interest awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, does not seem to be unreasonable from the date of filing of the application, therefore, I do not find any substance to interfere with on the point interest. 5. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.