Judgment 1. The appellant / respondent has preferred the appeal in C.M.A.No.1494 of 2001 against the order passed in W.C.No.229 of 1999, on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I, Chennai. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The applicant, who is the wife of the (deceased) Chandran had filed the claim in W.C.No.229 of 1999, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.9,87,826/- from the respondent for the death of the said Chandran for personal injuries (occupational disease) sustained by Chandran arising out of and in the course of his employment due to which he had sustained total permanent disability and subsequently died on 01.01.1999. It was submitted that the deceased was working as Deck Tondal Cassab under the opposite party from the year 1989. His last drawn salary was Rs.9,498/- and he was earning a sum of Rs.21,017/- per month including O.T. The opposite party had entered into agreement for 9 months with all seaman and before entering into agreement with the workers, the workers were examined by the medical officer of the opposite party and the opposite party took the workers in the job after verifying the certificate for sea service by their own doctor. Accordingly, the deceased was engaged with the services of opposite party and he was finally working as DTC Seaman in the ship, viz., "Harsha Vardhana". The contract period of the deceased was from 25.01.1997 to 25.10.1997 and the O.D.C.No. of the deceased was 16894. Due to the work done by the deceased, the health condition of the deceased became worse at the end of the contract period. It was submitted that during cleaning and painting, inhalation of dust was unavoidable and as such, it led to heart problem and Asthma to the deceased. When the said ship reached Port-Blair on 15.10.1997, the health condition of the deceased became serious and he was suffering from heart disease and asthma. As a result of which, the captain of the ship sent the deceased to G.P.Pint-Hospital at Port Blair, where the deceased took treatment, as inpatient till 20.10.1997. As the condition of the deceased deteriorated, the opposite party made arrangement to send the deceased to vizag through M.C.Nicobar Ship. Thereafter, the applicant's son made arrangements for further treatment at Chennai. As a result of which, the captain of the ship sent the deceased to G.P.Pint-Hospital at Port Blair, where the deceased took treatment, as inpatient till 20.10.1997. As the condition of the deceased deteriorated, the opposite party made arrangement to send the deceased to vizag through M.C.Nicobar Ship. Thereafter, the applicant's son made arrangements for further treatment at Chennai. The deceased was given treatment as inpatient at National Hospital from 27.10.1997 to 11.11.1997 and thereafter, the deceased had undergone medical treatment, as inpatient at Wellington Hospital. The doctors gave unfit certificate on 01.12.1997 and hence, the registration certificate of the deceased was also cancelled. As a result of this cancellation of registration, the deceased Chandran was permanently forbidden to attend his work. It was submitted that the applicant estimated the permanent disability of the deceased as 100% as per Clause 100 d(ii) of the agreement. The applicant further submitted that her husband had continued to take medical treatment with private hospitals and during the course of medical treatment, he died on 01.01.1999. Hence, the applicant had filed the claim against the respondent / The Management of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Chennai-1. 3. The respondent in his counter had admitted the employment of the deceased Chandran with them. It was submitted that the respondent was informed by their port blair office that the deceased Chandran was hospitalized at port blair on 15.10.1997 for treatment of "Bronchial Asthma", while he was working on the vessel 'Harsha Vardhana'. The opposite party has further contended that the deceased was given excellent treatment by experts at port blair and he has been repatriated to vizag by another passenger vessel M.V.Nicobar, as he was unfit to travel by air as per the opinion of the medical officer, for further treatment. It was further submitted that the (deceased) Seaman was given treatment at the National Hospital, Chennai under the care of medical officer, SCI Chennai from 25.10.1997 to 01.12.1997. It was further submitted that the duration of the treatment was prolonged due to the severe nature of injuries and in view of the nature of his illness, he was declared permanently unfit for sea service by the company's medical officer with effect from 01.12.1997. It was submitted that since the (deceased) Chandran was on general roster, he is not entitled for compensation. It was submitted that since the (deceased) Chandran was on general roster, he is not entitled for compensation. It was submitted that the applicant's husband had worked as a general seaman, whose name was registered with the Director of Employment Office, Chennai in the capacity of Deck Thondal Cassab on board the passenger vessel, viz., 'M.V.Harsha Vardhana' plying between the mainland and Andaman Nicobar Islands for the article period of 9 months and that the last drawn salary of the deceased was Rs.7,446/- including all allowances. It was submitted that the work done by the deceased was to look after the stores, distributing goods from the stores and keep safe custody of goods like chairs, paints, spare items, shovels, brushes etc. It was submitted that the deceased did not do any cleaning and painting work and that the work done by him did not invoke inhaling of dust and as such, the contention that the deceased had sustained heart problem and asthma due to his work was not admitted. It was submitted that the deceased was inflicted with illness only due to his un-interrupted intoxication on board during the journey of the vessel. It was submitted that all the medical expenses incurred by the (deceased) had been paid by this respondent. The averments in the claim that the (deceased) died due to occupational disease was not admitted. 4. On the applicant's side, the applicant, viz., Tmt. Kirupavathy was examined as A.W.1 and 14 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A14, viz., Ex.A1, identity card of the deceased, Ex.A2-salary bill, Ex.A3-fitness certificate for sea service, Ex.A4-letter dated 16.10.1997 sent to the applicant by the opposite party, Ex.A5-telegram sent by on behalf of opposite party, Ex.A6-Echo Cardiography report of the deceased, Ex.A7-admission summary record - given by National Hospital, Ex.A8-treatment record given by Dr.Sekar, Ex.A9-certificate indicating the disease suffered by the deceased given by Willington Hospital, Chennai, Ex.A10-permanently unfit certificate given by medical officer of opposite party, Ex.A11-registration cancellation order given by seaman employment - officer, Ex.A12-letter dated 16.05.1998 sent by the deceased to the opposite party, Ex.A13-letter dated 07.07.1998 sent by the opposite party to the deceased and Ex.A14-copy of N.M.B. agreement. On the opposite party's side, one Thiru. Vivek Shawl was examined as R.W.1. 5. A.W.1 had adduced evidence that she is the wife of the deceased V.Chandran. On the opposite party's side, one Thiru. Vivek Shawl was examined as R.W.1. 5. A.W.1 had adduced evidence that she is the wife of the deceased V.Chandran. She deposed that her husband had worked as "Deck Tondal Cassab" under the opposite party and that the deceased was finally working in the ship "Harsha Vardhana" owned by the opposite party. She deposed that the deceased was hale and healthy while he joined in the services of the opposite party and that due to cleaning and painting work done by him, he had inhaled dust due to which he had sustained heart problem and "asthma" and that he was finally declared unfit for duty by the company doctors. She had prayed for compensation as per National Maritime Board (NMB) agreement. In support of her evidence, she had marked Exs.A1 to A14. 6. R.W.1, Thiru.Vivek Shawl had adduced evidence that the deceased Chandran used to supervise cleaning of decks and painting. However, he had admitted that he had joined in services of opposite party only in January 1998 and that he did not travel in the ship when the deceased travelled in the ship "Harsha VArdhana". He had further admitted that the seaman has to inhale dust while cleaning the vessel especially if the passenger vehicle is loaded with goods. He further stated that the logbook is maintained in the ship, which will clearly show the nature of work done. 7. The learned Deputy Commissioner, on scrutiny of Ex.A3, observed that the deceased was hale and healthy, when he joined the services of the opposite party. On scrutiny of Exs.A4 to A12, it is seen that within a period of 9 months, due to the occupation held by the deceased, he had developed "Bronchial Asthma". On scrutiny of Ex.A10 and A11, it is seen that the deceased had been rendered permanently unfit for sea service. The learned Deputy Commissioner, on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence held that the deceased had died due to the "occupational disease" arising out of and in the course of his employment under the opposite party. The learned Deputy Commissioner further observed that no documents had been marked by the opposite party to prove their contention that the (deceased) had died due to "uninterrupted intoxication" during his travel in the ship. The learned Deputy Commissioner further observed that no documents had been marked by the opposite party to prove their contention that the (deceased) had died due to "uninterrupted intoxication" during his travel in the ship. The learned Deputy Commissioner on scrutiny of evidence of A.W.1 and R.W.1 and on scrutiny of documentary exhibits held that the deceased had sustained total permanent disability as a result of 'occupation disease' and hence held that the loss of earning suffered by him was 100%. The learned Deputy Commissioner observed that the opposite party had not produced any material evidence to show that during the period of service by a seaman from General Roster, he is not eligible for any benefit under the NMB agreement, which had been marked as Ex.A14. Hence, the learned Deputy Commissioner held that the deceased is entitled to receive 100% compensation as per Clause 100(d)(ii) of NMB agreement. The learned Deputy Commissioner, on scrutiny of Ex.A2, observed that the deceased was paid a sum of Rs.1,35,829/- for 6 1/2 months and hence, held that he had received a sum of above Rs.12,000/- per month from the opposite party. Hence, the learned Deputy Commissioner held that the deceased was entitled to a sum of Rs.9,87,826/- on the date of his medical invalidation i.e., on 01.12.1997. The learned Deputy Commissioner, on observing that the opposite party had not paid the said amount of compensation to the deceased during his lifetime, held that the said amount is to be paid to the dependants of the deceased Chandran and directed the opposite party to deposit the said sum, in their Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of its order together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim i.e., 21.09.1999 till the date of payment of compensation. 8. Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the respondent / the Management of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Chennai has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.No.1494 of 2001. 9. 8. Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the respondent / the Management of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Chennai has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.No.1494 of 2001. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended in his appeal that the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant would clearly show that the employee died due to heart attack and even prior to death, he was suffering from "antero septal myocardial intraction with left ventricular failure" and as such, the death of the deceased employee would by no stretch of imagination has arisen out of and in the course of employment. It was contended that the heart ailment of the deceased is not an occupational disease as per the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It was contended that the learned Deputy Commissioner failed to see that the claimant had not even discharged the initial burden of proof to establish that the deceased was continuously treated till his death and had not examined the doctor to prove the contentions of the continuous medical treatment. It was contended that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour ought to have seen that even if the claimant is entitled for compensation, the same should have been computed in accordance with Section 4(i)(a) of the Act and ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.1,13,270/- by taking into account age of deceased (61 years) and by adopting a multiplier of 113.27 (50/100 x 2000 x 113.27). It was contended that the learned Deputy Commissioner failed to consider the aspect that "National Maritime Board Agreement" will be applicable to the permanent employees of foreign going Indian vessels engaging seaman under articles of agreement and shall be binding on all shipping companies. It was contended that the deceased Chandran was not a permanent employee of the appellant and the vessel is also not a foreign going vessel, since it was plying between the Indian Main Land and the Island of Andaman and Nicobar and therefore, he is not entitled to compensation as per the National Maritime Board. It was also contended that even assuming National Maritime Board agreement was applicable, the applicant could not claim compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. It was also contended that even assuming National Maritime Board agreement was applicable, the applicant could not claim compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. It was contended that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour failed to consider the aspect that the claimant has not even asked for production of the logbooks and when the claimant has not even chosen to examine a co-worker, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour erred in finding fault with the appellant herein for not examining the co-worker of the deceased. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour. 10. Not being satisfied by the award passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the appellant/claimant has preferred the appeal in C.M.A.No.3264 of 2006. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant / claimant has contended in his appeal that the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ought to have awarded interest from the date of medical invalidation (01.12.1997) instead of awarding interest from the date of filing the claim petition (21.09.1999). It was contended that the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ought to have awarded interest from the date on which compensation was due as per Section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act and not from the date of filing the claim petition as per the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Courts reported in, (i) 1998 ACJ 1, (ii) AIR 1976 (SC) 222 , (iii) 1997 LAB IC 891 (iv) 1995 LAB IC 677 (v) 2000 (1) ACC 125, without imposing any condition which gave loopholes to the respondent to evade payment of interest for the awarded amount. Hence, it was prayed to set-aside the order dated 03.07.2001 in W.C.No.229 of 1999, on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I, Chennai-6 and pass an award for a sum of Rs.9,87,826/- against the respondent, payable by the respondent with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of medical invalidation. 12. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding the liability and quantum of compensation. 12. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding the liability and quantum of compensation. Further, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour had awarded the sum with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing the application, which is appropriate, as the interest was based on the time of admission of the compensation petition. Hence, the award is confirmed. 13. Now, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the said amount with accrued interest, if any, lying in the credit of W.C.No.229 of 1999, on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I, Chennai, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order and after identification of the claimant by her counsel. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the Management of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., in C.M.A.No.1494 of 2001 and the appeal filed by the claimant in C.M.A.No.3264 of 2006 are dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in W.C.No.229 of 1999, on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-I, Chennai, dated 03.07.2001 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.