Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 66 (GAU)

Anu Biswas v. Owner And Managing Director

2018-01-12

A.K.GOSWAMI

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. K.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard S.U. Ahmed, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.1. 2. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment & order dated 05.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, Ulubari, Guwahati in W.C. Case No.87/2007. 3. By an order dated 28.03.2016, this appeal was admitted, without, however, framing any substantial question of law. 4. Compensation was awarded to the appellants amounting to Rs.3,94,120/- along with a sum of Rs.2,500/- as funeral cost on account of death of their predecessor in interest, namely, Dinesh Biswas, in an accident arising out and in course of his employment under the respondent No.1. The amount of compensation and funeral cost were directed to be deposited within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which it was observed that the respondent No.1 will be liable to pay an interest @ 12% per annum in addition to the aforesaid awarded compensation amount till realization of the amount. 5. Mr. K.U. Ahmed submits that 2 (two) substantial questions of law arise for determination in this appeal, which are: (1) Whether the learned Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Kamrup committed error of law in not awarding interest from the date of the accident; and (2) Whether it was justified to award funeral cost of Rs.2,500/- instead of Rs.5,000/-, which was the amount liable to be paid after the amendment effected in Section 4 (4) w.e.f. 18.01.2010. 6. Mr. S.U. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that although substantial question of law was not framed earlier, he is ready with the case. 7. In the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata & Anr., reported in (1976) 1 SCC 289 , the Supreme Court had held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman by the accident which arose out of and in the course of the employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of the adjudication of the claim. 8. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of the adjudication of the claim. 8. Section 4A (1) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 provides that compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due and, therefore, it was the duty of the respondent No.1 to have paid compensation at the rate provided by Section 4 as soon as the workman had died but it was not so done. 9. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Siby George & Ors., reported in (2012) 12 SCC 540 , the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation directing payment of simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the accident. 10. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation manifestly fell into error in not awarding interest @ 12% from the date of the accident. Therefore, the respondent No.1 will be liable to pay interest from the date of accident, which is on 18.09.2006, @ 12% per annum till 27.02.2013 when the cheque was deposited for payment to the appellants herein. Such payment shall be made within a period of 3 (three) months from today, failing which it will continue to accrue interest @ 12% per annum. 11. So far as the funeral cost is concerned, it is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time when the accident had occurred, a sum of Rs.2,500/- was payable by the employer. Subsequently, as noticed earlier, the amount of Rs.2,500/- was enhanced to not less than Rs.5,000/- by Act 45 of 2009 with effect from 18.01.2010. 12. If the funeral cost was paid immediately after the occurrence, there would have been no occasion for enhancement of the amount to Rs.5,000/- on the ground that the judgment came to be passed after the amendment had taken place. But as the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,500/- was not paid and as by the time the judgment came to be pronounced, the amount of funeral cost had been enhanced, I am of the considered opinion that the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 being a beneficial piece of legislation, the appellants cannot be deprived of the enhanced amount towards funeral cost. 13. But as the aforesaid amount of Rs.2,500/- was not paid and as by the time the judgment came to be pronounced, the amount of funeral cost had been enhanced, I am of the considered opinion that the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 being a beneficial piece of legislation, the appellants cannot be deprived of the enhanced amount towards funeral cost. 13. Taking that view, the respondent No.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- in addition to what had already been paid towards funeral cost within a period of 3 (three) months. 14. The amounts shall be deposited before the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Kamrup, Guwahati. 15. Mr. K.U. Ahmed submits that the appellant No.1, who is the wife of the deceased, may be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited. 16. In view of the above submission, the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation will allow the appellant No.1 to withdraw the amount deposited on being duly identified. 17. Appeal is allowed with the above directions and observations. 18. Registry will send back the LCR forthwith.