Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1125 (HP)

Guddi Devi v. Nankhari Tehsil Co-Op. M&C Union

2017-10-03

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. CMP(M) NO. 2081 of 2016 By medium of this application, the applicants/appellants have sought condonation of 2430 days delay that has crept-in in filing of the appeal. 2. As regards the main appeal, the same is directed against the award dated 3.8.2009 passed by learned Commissioner, under Workmen’s Compensation Act (SDM), Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P. in Case No. 3-XXXI/99 whereby the learned Commissioner assessed the compensation in the following manner: 1. Name of deceased Sh. Man Singh 2. Date of accident 4.03.1996 3. Date of death 7.05.1996 4. Date on which compensation due 8.6.1996 5. Monthly wages 3000/- per month ½ i.e. 1500/- P.M. 6. Age at the time of death 38 years 7. Relevant factor 189.76 8. Compensation 1500/-x189.76=Rs.2,84,640/- 9. Interest @ 12% w.e.f. 8.6.96 to 3.8.2009 (102 months 26 days) 284640x12x102.26months=2,91,072/- 100x12 10. Total compensation Rs.2,84,640+2,91,072/-= Rs.5,75,712/- 3. Evidently, the learned Commissioner while passing the award has granted interest only from the date of filing of the petition and not from the date of the accident. That apart, the award is conspicuously silent with regard to the entitlement of the claimants for interest in the event of the failure of the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation within 45 days of passing of such award. 4. Admittedly, the Insurance Company did not deposit the award amount within the stipulated period, constraining the petitioners to file an application under Order 21, Rule 41(1) (2) read with Section 151 CPC. 5. In this background, two questions arise for consideration: (i) From which date the claimants are entitled to interest ? (ii) Whether in absence of any further directions with regard to deposit of compensation amount within the stipulated period and consequences thereof would mean that the claimants are not entitled for interest on the award amount beyond this period? 6. As regards the first question, the legal position is no longer res integra in view of the four-Judge Bench decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289 wherein it has been clearly held that the compensation including interest has to be paid from the date of accident and not from the date of the award. 7. 7. In Manju Sarkar and others vs. Mabish Miah and others (2014) 14 SCC 21 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in absence of clause in contract of insurance excluding provision for interest, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the interest and it was held as under: “13. A contention was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, Insurance Company that they are not liable to pay the interest component and reliance was placed on the decision of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya (2006) 5 SCC 192 . In the facts of the case on which the said decision arose, the contract of insurance entered into between the parties contained a proviso that the insurance granted is not extended to include any interest. In the present case there is nothing on record to show that respondent No. 3, Insurance Company either pleaded about existence of such a clause in the contract of insurance or led any evidence to the said effect and hence the said decision will not help Respondent No.3 in any way and the contention raised is devoid of merit.” Thus, it is evidently clear that the amount of interest has to be paid from the date of accident and not from the date of award. 8. Now, as regards the second question in Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others (2014) 2 SCC 298 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held the appellants to be entitled to 12% interest from the date of the accident and it was observed as under: “8. We have perused the aforesaid judgment. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. This Court considered the earlier judgment relied upon by the High Court and observed that the judgments in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed (2007) 2 SCC 349 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir, (2009) 6 SCC 280 were per incuriam having been rendered without considering the earlier decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo case (supra). In the aforesaid judgment, upon consideration of the entire matter, a four-judge Bench of this Court had held that the compensation has to be paid from the date of the accident. 9. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir, (2009) 6 SCC 280 were per incuriam having been rendered without considering the earlier decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo case (supra). In the aforesaid judgment, upon consideration of the entire matter, a four-judge Bench of this Court had held that the compensation has to be paid from the date of the accident. 9. Following the aforesaid judgments, this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Siby George and others (2012) 12 SCC 540 reiterated the legal position and held as follows: (SCC pp. 545-46, paras 11-13) “11. The Court then referred to a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi (1998) 1 KLT 951 , and approved it insofar as it followed the decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo. 12. The decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo was by a four-judge Bench and in Kerala SEB vs. Valsaka K. (1999) 8 SCC 254 by a three-judge Bench of this Court. Both the decisions were, thus, fully binding on the Court in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir, each of which was heard by two Judges. But the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K. were not brought to the notice of the Court in the two later decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir. 13. In the light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K., it is not open to contend that the payment of compensation would fall due only after the Commissioner’s order or with reference to the date on which the claim application is made. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K. do not express the correct view and do not make binding precedents.” 10. In view of the aforesaid settled proposition of law, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the accident. No cost.” 9. It is more than settled that Article 141 of the Constitution of India reads thus: “141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all Courts. - The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.” 10. No cost.” 9. It is more than settled that Article 141 of the Constitution of India reads thus: “141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all Courts. - The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.” 10. A bare reading of Article 141 of the Constitution of India brings into sharp focus its expanse and its all pervasive nature. Article 141 of the Constitution of India unequivocally indicates that the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. 11. In such circumstances, this Court has no difficulty in concluding that there was virtually no necessity for the appellants to have filed the instant appeal as all the Courts including the Tribunal below are bound to follow the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the claimants, as a matter of right, were entitled to interest from the date of the accident and not from the date of filing of the petition and once the liability to pay the interest commences from the date of the accident, then obviously the same would continue till the same is not discharged. Therefore, even in absence of any further directions to the respondents to deposit the award amount, the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation alongwith up-to-date interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident would continue till the same is not paid. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there was virtually no need for the claimants to have filed the present appeal and the award passed by the learned Tribunal below will essentially have to be read in a manner as indicated above. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application.