Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 30 (MAD)

H. CHIMANLAL JAIN v. E. RANGANATHAN

2014-01-03

S.MANIKUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. Aggrieved by the award dated 15.10.2009, made in W.C. No. 353 of 2006, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner-II of Labour, Office of the Commissioner-II, Workmen's Compensation, Teynampet, Chennai-6, respondent No. 3 herein, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,52,489, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, the appellant has preferred this appeal. It is the case of the respondent workman that he was a mason under the opposite party No. 1, who was the supervisor. Appellant has been arrayed as the opposite party No. 2. That on 12.12.2005, at about 4.30 p.m., when the respondent workman was working in the appellant's company, at old No. 22, new No. 24, Meeran Sahib Street, Mount Road, Chennai-2, under the supervision of the opposite party No. 1, he fell down from the building and sustained a fracture of the calcaneus in the right foot and other multiple injuries all over the body. Both the opposite parties admitted the respondent workman in the Government General Hospital, Chennai and he was treated as inpatient from 12.12.2005 to 13.12.2005. After discharge, he took treatment in Puthur, Andhra Pradesh. According to the respondent workman, at the time of accident he was aged 28 years and due to the accident he has permanently lost his earning capacity. Therefore, he sent a legal notice to both the parties to pay adequate compensation. Since both the opposite parties did not come forward to settle the claim, the respondent-claimant filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. R.C. Company, opposite party No. 2, represented by H. Chimanlal Jain, in its counter-affidavit, has admitted that he is the owner of the above said premises and that he has entered into a construction agreement with the opposite party No. 1 to construct a multi-storied building. As per the agreement, the opposite party No. 1 should be solely and exclusively liable for any injury to any of the employees, during the course of employment. Therefore, the owner of the building, opposite party No. 2, in its counter-affidavit, has submitted that the opposite party No. 1, who is the employer, alone is liable to pay compensation, if any. According to the opposite party No. 2, he is in no way connected with the employment of the petitioner. All the allegations levelled against the opposite party No. 2 have been denied. According to the opposite party No. 2, he is in no way connected with the employment of the petitioner. All the allegations levelled against the opposite party No. 2 have been denied. According to him, there is no employer-employee relationship and hence, claim petition is not maintainable. Without prejudice to the above, R.C. Company, opposite party No. 2, has disputed the age and other aspects. 3. Before the Commissioner, the respondent workman examined himself as AW1. AW 2 is the co-employee and AW 3 is the doctor who examined the respondent workman, with reference to the medical records. Discharge summary, Exh. A1, documents showing treatment given in Puthur, Exh. A2, photographs negative, Exh. A3, identity card issued by the construction workers' union, Exh. A4, legal notice, Exh. A5, disability certificate, Exh. A6, and X-rays, Exh. A7, have been marked on the side of the respondent workman. Both the opposite parties have examined themselves as RWs 1 and 2 respectively and marked reply notice, Exh. R1, acknowledgment card, Exh. R2 and reply notice, Exh. R3. 4. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, vide the order dated 15.10.2009, found that the accident had occurred arising out of and during the course of employment and accordingly, determined the compensation at Rs. 1,52,489, to be deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the award, failing which interest would be awarded at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident till the said amount was deposited by the opposite parties. 5. In the memorandum of grounds, the following substantial questions of law have been raised : "(i) Whether the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, is right in awarding compensation when the applicant-claimant miserably failed in proving the accident? (ii) Whether the order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, is justifiable in accordance with the provisions envisaged in Workmen's Compensation Act? (iii) Whether it is justifiable on the part of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, in holding that the applicant is employed under the appellant, without any satisfactory evidence? (iv) Whether the finding of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, in holding that the accident occurred in due course of employment is valid, without any cogent evidence rendered on the side of the applicant?" 6. Mr. Vikram Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, made arguments in respect of the same. 7. (iv) Whether the finding of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, in holding that the accident occurred in due course of employment is valid, without any cogent evidence rendered on the side of the applicant?" 6. Mr. Vikram Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, made arguments in respect of the same. 7. Inviting the attention of this court to sections 3, 4, 4-A, 8 and 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Mr. U.M. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the respondent workman, submitted that as per the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the amount ought to have been deposited within one month from the date it fell due, i.e., within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. He further submitted that as per the entry made in the postal cover, dispatched from the Office of the Commissioner, copy of the order has been received on 16.9.2010. As per section 8 of the Act, the entire amount determined by the Commissioner ought to have been deposited on or before 15.10.2010. But in the case on hand, only the award amount of Rs. 1,52,489 has been deposited, by way of demand draft bearing No. 095826, dated 13.11.2010, drawn on Union Bank, Sowcarpet, Chennai. The said amount has been received by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 16.11.2010, which is much later than the time provided for deposit. 8. According to the learned counsel for the respondent workman, the amount ought to have been deposited on or before 15.10.2010 and if not done before the said date, then the sum determined would carry 12 per cent interest. He, therefore, submitted that the amount deposited by the appellant cannot be said to be within the period provided for, for deposit. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent workman also invited the attention of this court to section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and further submitted that since the time provided for filing an appeal is 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order made in W.C. No. 353 of 2006, the appellant has sent a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai-2, only on 15.11.2010. He further submitted that the appeal has been filed on 11.11.2010, even before the deposit was made. For the above said reasons, he submitted that the appeal has to be dismissed in limine. He further submitted that the appeal has been filed on 11.11.2010, even before the deposit was made. For the above said reasons, he submitted that the appeal has to be dismissed in limine. Without prejudice to the above, he submitted that the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant only relate to the findings of fact, which do not require any interference. 10. By way of reply, Mr. Vikram Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that it is suffice to deposit the principal amount alone. In support of the same, he relied on the following decisions, viz., Indo Aromatic Pvt. Ltd. v. Sarvesh Devi, (2008) 118 FLR 31 and Chowgule and Co. v. Felicidade, AIR 1970 Goa and Daman 127. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent workman relied on a decision of this court in M. Rahimkan v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour, 1997 (2) CTC 558 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Before adverting to the merits of the case, this court deems it fit to address the issue, as to whether the appeal has been filed in accordance with law. Sections 3, 4, 4-A, 8 and 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act are extracted hereunder: "(3) Employer's liability for compensation.-(1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable- (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days; (b) in respect of any injury not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to- (i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen, or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen. (2) If a workman employed in any employment specified in Part A of Schedule III contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a workman, whilst in the service of an employer in whose service he has been employed for a continuous period of not less than six months (which period shall not include a period of service under any other employer in the same kind of employment) in any employment specified in Part B of Schedule III, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, or if a workman whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III for such continuous period as the Central Government may specify in respect of each such employment, contracts any disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section and, unless the contrary is proved, the accident shall be deemed to have arisen out of, and in the course of, the employment: Provided that if it is proved- (a) that a workman whilst in the service of one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of Schedule III has contracted a disease specified therein as an occupational disease peculiar to that employment during a continuous period which is less than the period specified under this sub-section for that employment; and (b) that the disease has arisen out of and in the course of the employment, the contracting of such disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section: Provided further that if it is proved that a workman who having served under any employer in any employment specified in Part B of Schedule III or who having served under one or more employers in any employment specified in Part C of that Schedule, for a continuous period specified under this sub-section for that employment and he has after the cessation of such service contracted any disease specified in the said Part B or the said Part C, as the case may be, as an occupational disease peculiar to the employment and that such disease arose out of the employment, the contracting of the disease shall be deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section. (2-A) If a workman employed in any employment specified in Part C of the Schedule III contracts any occupational disease peculiar to that employment, the contracting whereof is deemed to be an injury by accident within the meaning of this section, and such employment was under more than one employer, all such employers shall be liable for the payment of the compensation in such proportion as the Commissioner may, in the circumstances, deem just. (3) The Central Government or the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, after giving not less than three months' notice of its intention so to do, may, by a like notification, add any description of employment to the employments specified in Schedule III and shall specify in the case of employments so added the diseases which shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments respectively, and thereupon the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply in the case of a notification by the Central Government, within the territories to which this Act extends, or in case of a notification by the State Government, within the State as if such diseases had been declared by this Act to be occupational diseases peculiar to those employments. (4) Save as provided by sub-sections (2), (2-A) and (3), no compensation shall be payable to a workman in respect of any disease unless the disease is directly attributable to a specific injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. (5) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer any right to compensation on a workman in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a civil court a suit for damages in respect of the injury against the employer or any other person; and no suit for damages shall be maintainable by a workman in any court of law in respect of any injury- (a) if he has instituted a claim to compensation in respect of the injury before a Commissioner; or (b) if an agreement has been come to between the workman and his employer providing for the payment of compensation in respect of the injury in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 4. 4. Amount of compensation.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely: Explanation I.-For the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b), 'relevant factor' in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due. Explanation II.-Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed four thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be four thousand rupees only; Explanation I.-Where more injuries than one are caused by the same accident, the amount of compensation payable under this head shall be aggregated but not so in any case as to exceed the amount which would have been payable if permanent total disablement had resulted from the injuries. Explanation II.-In assessing the loss of earning capacity for the purpose of sub-clause (ii), the qualified medical practitioner shall have due regard to the percentages of loss of earning capacity in relation to different injuries specified in Schedule I; (1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a workman in respect of an accident occurred outside India, the Commissioner shall take into account the amount of compensation, if any, awarded to such workman in accordance with the law of the country in which the accident occurred and shall reduce the amount fixed by him by the amount of compensation awarded to the workman in accordance with the law of that country. (2) The half-monthly payment referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be payable on the sixteenth day- (i) from the date of disablement where such disablement lasts for a period of twenty-eight days or more, or (ii) after the expiry of a waiting period of three days from the date of disablement where such disablement lasts for a period of less than twenty-eight days; and thereafter half-monthly during the disablement or during a period of five years, whichever period is shorter: Provided that- (a) there shall be deducted from any lump sum or half-monthly payments to which the workman is entitled the amount of any payment or allowance which the workman has received from the employer by way of compensation during the period of disablement prior to the receipt of such lump sum or of the first half-monthly payment, as the case may be; and (b) no half-monthly payment shall in any case exceed the amount, if any, by which half the amount of the monthly wages of the workman before the accident exceeds half the amount of such wages which he is earning after the accident. Explanation.-Any payment or allowance which the workman has received from the employer towards his medical treatment shall not be deemed to be a payment or allowance received by him by way of compensation within the meaning of clause (a) of the proviso. (3) On the ceasing of the disablement before the date on which any half-monthly payment falls due, there shall be payable in respect of that half-month a sum proportionate to the duration of the disablement in that half-month. (4) If the injury of the workman results in his death, the employer shall, in addition to the compensation under sub-section (1), deposit with the Commissioner a sum of two thousand and five hundred rupees for payment of the same to the eldest surviving dependant of the workman towards the expenditure of the funeral of such workman or where the workman did not have a dependant or was not living with his dependant at the time of his death to the person who actually incurred such expenditure. 4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.-(1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. 4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.-(1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall- (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, 'scheduled bank' means a bank for the time being included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934). (3-A) The interest and the penalty payable under sub-section (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependant, as the case may be. 8. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, 'scheduled bank' means a bank for the time being included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934). (3-A) The interest and the penalty payable under sub-section (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependant, as the case may be. 8. Distribution of compensation.-(1) No payment of compensation in respect of a workman whose injury has resulted in death, and no payment of a lump sum as compensation to a woman or a person under a legal disability, shall be made otherwise than by deposit with the Commissioner, and no such payment made directly by an employer shall be deemed to be a payment of compensation: Provided that, in the case of a deceased workman, an employer may make to any dependant advances on account of compensation of an amount equal to three months' wages of such workman and so much of such amount as does not exceed the compensation payable to that dependant shall be deducted by the Commissioner from such compensation and repaid to the employer. (2) Any other sum amounting to not less than ten rupees which is payable as compensation may be deposited with the Commissioner on behalf of the person entitled thereto. (3) The receipt of the Commissioner shall be a sufficient discharge in respect of any compensation deposited with him. (4) On the deposit of any money under sub-section (1) as compensation in respect of a deceased workman, the Commissioner shall, if he thinks necessary, cause notice to be published or to be served on such dependant in such manner as he thinks fit, calling upon the dependants to appear before him on such date as he may fix for determining the distribution of the compensation. If the Commissioner is satisfied, after any inquiry which he may deem necessary, that no dependant exists, he shall repay the balance of the money to the employer by whom it was paid. The Commissioner shall, on application by the employer, furnish a statement showing in detail all disbursements made. (5) Compensation deposited in respect of a deceased workman shall, subject to any deduction made under sub-section (4), be apportioned among the dependants of the deceased workman or any of them in such proportion as the Commissioner thinks fit, or may, in the discretion of the Commissioner, be allotted to any one dependant. (5) Compensation deposited in respect of a deceased workman shall, subject to any deduction made under sub-section (4), be apportioned among the dependants of the deceased workman or any of them in such proportion as the Commissioner thinks fit, or may, in the discretion of the Commissioner, be allotted to any one dependant. (6) Where any compensation deposited with the Commissioner is payable to any person, the Commissioner shall, if the person to whom the compensation is payable is not a woman or a person under a legal disability, and may, in other cases, pay the money to the person entitled thereto. (7) Where any lump sum deposited with the Commissioner is payable to a woman or a person under a legal disability, such sum may be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with for the benefit of the woman, or of such person during his disability, in such manner as the Commissioner may direct; and where a half-monthly payment is payable to any person under a legal disability, the Commissioner may, of his own motion or on an application made to him in this behalf, order that the payment be made during the disability to any dependant of the workman or to any other person, whom the Commissioner thinks best fitted to provide for the welfare of the workman. (8) Where an application made to him in this behalf or otherwise, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on account of neglect of children on the part of a parent or on account of the variation of the circumstances of any dependant or for any other sufficient cause, an order of the Commissioner as to the distribution of any sum paid as compensation or as to the manner in which any sum payable to any such dependant is to be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with, ought to be varied, the Commissioner may make such orders for the variation of the former order as he thinks just in the circumstances of the case: Provided that no such order prejudicial to any person shall be made unless such person has been given an opportunity of showing cause why the order should not be made or shall be made in any case in which it would involve the repayment by a dependant of any sum already paid to him. (9) Where the Commissioner varies any order under sub-section (8) by reason of the fact that payment of compensation to any person has been obtained by fraud, impersonation or other improper means, any amount so paid to or on behalf of such person may be recovered in the manner hereinafter provided in section 31. 30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely : (a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; (aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4-A; (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall be applicable to appeals under this section." 13. In M. Rahimkan Vs. (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall be applicable to appeals under this section." 13. In M. Rahimkan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation) and Others, (1997) 2 CTC 558 , after considering a decision made in Nathamani Gounder v. Kaliammal, 1986 (99) LW 463, at para 9, this court held as follows: "(9) In view of the decisions referred above and in view of the fact that the main intention of the legislature in bringing the Workmen's Compensation Act and of the fact that the said proviso is withstood for several decades, I do not find any justification in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to his second submission, also. As already mentioned, the right of appeal has not been taken away by the legislature. After depositing the amount, it is always open to the aggrieved person, petitioner herein, to file an appeal under section 30 (1) of the said Act and if he has a case, it is open to him to convince this court and also prevent the workman or his legal heirs to withdraw the amount till the disposal of the appeal. When such provision is available in the Act, the condition that the amount has to be deposited prior to the filing of the appeal cannot be said to be either erroneous or arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. On the other hand, considering the entire enactment which is intended to help the victim who suffers from injuries in the course of employment and to the legal heirs of the deceased workman, it is but proper that necessary safeguards have to be made in order to protect those persons. As rightly observed by K. Sukumaran, J., of Kerala High Court in the decision referred above, if such provision is not there, the appeal period could be used for dishonest manipulation by an unscrupulous employer." 14. As rightly observed by K. Sukumaran, J., of Kerala High Court in the decision referred above, if such provision is not there, the appeal period could be used for dishonest manipulation by an unscrupulous employer." 14. In a batch of civil miscellaneous appeals in N. Ganesan v. Thilagavathi, C.M.A. No. 823 of 2001, etc.; decided on 28.4.2010, an Hon'ble Division Bench of this court, after considering the law on various decisions and while answering the issue, as to when the amount determined by the Commissioner falls due for payment, vide order, dated 28.4.2010, at para 27, answered as follows: "(i) The words 'falls due' occurring under section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in the light of the ratio laid down in the larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata and Another, (1976) 1 SCC 289 , and Kerala State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Valsala K. and Another, (1999) 8 SCC 254 , means that interest for compensation amount would accrue 30 days after the date of the accident and not from the date of quantification/orders passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. (ii) The decisions rendered by the single Bench of this court in Marimuthuammal v. R.P.P. Construction (P) Ltd., 2008 ACJ 2788 (Madras) and A. Chairmen v. A. Thirumeni, 2008 (1) TN MAC 38, had laid down the correct proposition in consonance with the ratio laid down by the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited decisions." 15. The decision made in Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 , extracted in N. Ganesan v. Thilagavathi, C.M.A. No. 823 of 2001, etc., are worth reproduction: "(7) In Ved Prakash Garg Vs. The decision made in Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 , extracted in N. Ganesan v. Thilagavathi, C.M.A. No. 823 of 2001, etc., are worth reproduction: "(7) In Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 1 , the following question came up for consideration: '(1) Where an employee receives a personal injury in a motor accident arising out of and in the course of his employment while working on the motor vehicle of the employer, whether the insurance company, which has insured the employer-owner of the vehicle against third party accident claims under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act') and against claims for compensation arising out of proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Compensation Act') in connection with such motor accidents, is liable to meet the awards of Workmen's Commissioner imposing penalty and interest against the insured employer under section 4-A (3) of the Compensation Act.' The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said decision held as follows: '(14) On a conjoint operation of the relevant schemes of the aforesaid twin Acts, in our view, there is no escape from the conclusion that the insurance companies will be liable to make good not only the principal amounts of compensation payable by insured employers but also interest thereon, if ordered by the Commissioner to be paid by the insured employers. Reason for this conclusion is obvious. As we have noted earlier, the liability to pay compensation under the Compensation Act gets foisted on the employer provided it is shown that the workman concerned suffered from personal injury, fatal or otherwise, by any motor accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Such an accident is also covered by the statutory coverage contemplated by section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the identical provisions under the very contracts of insurance reflected by the policy which would make the insurance company liable to cover all such claims for compensation for which statutory liability is imposed on the employer under section 3 read with section 4-A of the Compensation Act. All these provisions represent a well-knit scheme for computing the statutory liability of the employers in cases of such accidents to their workmen. All these provisions represent a well-knit scheme for computing the statutory liability of the employers in cases of such accidents to their workmen. As we have seen earlier while discussing the scheme of section 4-A of the Compensation Act the legislative intent is clearly discernible that once compensation falls due and within one month it is not paid by the employer, then as per section 4-A(3)(a) interest at the permissible rate gets added to the said principal amount of compensation as the claimants would stand deprived of their legally due compensation for a period beyond one month which is statutorily granted to the employer concerned to make good his liability for the benefit of the claimants whose breadwinner might have either been seriously injured or might have lost his life. Thus so far as interest is concerned it is almost automatic once default, on the part of the employer in paying the compensation due, takes place beyond the permissible limit of one month. No element of penalty is involved therein. It is a statutory elongation of the liability of the employer to make good the principal amount of compensation within permissible time-limit during which interest may not run but otherwise liability of paying interest on delayed compensation will ipso facto follow. Even though the Commissioner under these circumstances can impose a further liability on the employer under circumstances and within limits contemplated by section 4-A(3)(a) still the liability to pay interest on the principal amount under the said provision remains a part and parcel of the statutory liability which is legally liable to be discharged by the insured employer. Consequently such imposition of interest on the principal amount would certainly partake the character of the legal liability of the insured employer to pay the compensation amount with due interest as imposed upon him under the Compensation Act. Thus the principal amount as well as the interest made payable thereon would remain part and parcel of the legal liability of the insured to be discharged under the Compensation Act and not dehors it. Thus the principal amount as well as the interest made payable thereon would remain part and parcel of the legal liability of the insured to be discharged under the Compensation Act and not dehors it. It, therefore, cannot be said by the insurance company that when it is statutorily and even contractually liable to reimburse the employer qua his statutory liability to pay compensation to the claimants in case of such motor accidents to his workmen, the interest on the principal amount which almost automatically gets foisted upon him once the compensation amount is not paid within one month from the date it fell due, would not be a part of the insured liability of the employer'." 16. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Mahalingam, 2013 ACJ 2468 (Madras), the award was passed on 30.5.2003. The insurance company received the award on 18.7.2003. Principal amount has been deposited, by way of cheque, dated 13.8.2003, with a cover note, dated 18.8.2003, duly acknowledged by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, dated 20.8.2003. As per the statutory provision, the insurance company should have deposited the amount within 30 days, i.e., 18.8.2003. There was no dispute that the principal amount alone was deposited. Appeal was not accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the insurance company had deposited the amount payable under the award appealed against. In the said circumstances, this court held as follows: "(19)...the appellant has failed to deposit the interest that has been ordered by the Commissioner. I am in entire agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Biju, (2011) 2 KLT 142 , and V.K. Raghavan Vs. Commissioner for Workmen's, (2008) ACJ 235, that the words 'amount payable under the order appealed against' in the third proviso will include not only the principal amount of compensation, but also interest as well." 17. Perusal of the reported judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent also shows that in the said case, while answering a question, as to whether deposit of cheque would amount to sufficient compliance of the third proviso to section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, taking note of a decision made in J and K SFC and Another Vs. Ghulam Mohd., (1993) ACJ 736 this court has opined that it does not amount to substantial compliance. Ghulam Mohd., (1993) ACJ 736 this court has opined that it does not amount to substantial compliance. The relevant para in the above reported decision, relied on by this court, is extracted below: "It has been laid down that a cheque, bank draft, cash in deposit or any other kind of security is no substitute for the deposit of the amount with the Commissioner under the Act and the memo of appeal accompanied by a certificate of the Commissioner to that effect. The court held that allowing any mode of deposit of award money other than one laid down under section 30 (1) third proviso would amount to rewriting law." 18. After considering J and K SFC and Another Vs. Ghulam Mohd., (1993) ACJ 736, this court, at para 21, further held as follows: "(21) Appeal in hand is not accompanied by the requisite certificate and, therefore, instead of certificate, a letter addressed to the Commissioner enclosing a cheque accompanying the memorandum of appeal cannot be termed to be the compliance of the requirement of third proviso to section 30 (1) of the Act, 1923. The insurance company/appellant having not deposited the interest accrued on its failure to deposit award amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of order and as the memorandum of appeal is not accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant insurance company has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against is not sufficient compliance of the requirement of third proviso to section 30 (1) of the Act, 1923 and as such, I hold that the appeal filed by the insurance company is not maintainable." 19. In view of the above, this court is inclined to follow the decision made in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Mahalingam, 2013 ACJ 2468 (Madras), than the decisions in Indo Aromatic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sarvesh Devi, Pawan Kumar, Km. Sangeeta and Km. Anita, (2008) 118 FLR 31, and Chowgule and Co. v. Felicidade, AIR 1970 Goa and Daman 127, which are of persuasive value, as per the law of precedents. 20. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent workman, from the date on which the appellant had received the copy of the order, i.e., on 16.9.2010, the amount becomes due for deposit. v. Felicidade, AIR 1970 Goa and Daman 127, which are of persuasive value, as per the law of precedents. 20. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent workman, from the date on which the appellant had received the copy of the order, i.e., on 16.9.2010, the amount becomes due for deposit. As per section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by virtue of the award, dated 15.10.2009, the said amount ought to have been deposited with the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation within 30 days from the date of receipt of the award. If the said amount had not been deposited within time, then it carries interest, at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, from the date of accident, till the said amount is deposited. Therefore, before filing an appeal within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the award, the compensation amount with proportionate interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum ought to have been deposited. 21. In the case on hand, the interest portion is not being deposited within time. Appeal is stated to be filed on 11.11.2010, to avoid limitation, i.e., 60 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the award. But the appeal has to be filed on 16.11.2010. Deposit of the compensation amount is also not made in accordance with the provisions stated supra. Therefore, the appeal ought not to have been entertained at all. 22. In the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no specific indication as to payment of interest within the stipulated date. However, in the case on hand, there is an order to that effect. Therefore, the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the light of the above, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. M.P. No. 1 of 2012 is ordered, vacating the interim direction passed in M.P. No. 1 of 2011, M.P. No. 1 of 2011 is dismissed. No costs.