Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2189 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bilkish

2019-08-14

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, J. The appellant/non-claimant No. 2 - Insurance Company has filed this appeal under section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and award dated 23.4.2009 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Case No. WCCF18/2008 (Smt. Bilkish v. Abdul Gaffar,). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that though the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lie against the specific orders set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question of law. But the learned Commissioner has awarded 12% interest per annum from the date of death of the deceased i.e. 12.12.2007 which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of NIC v. Muvasir Ahamad, in the year 2007 and NIC v. Kamla Chaturvedi, in the year 2009 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the interest is payable from the date on its falls due and not from the date from the date of accident. Despite that the learned Commissioner awarded interest @ 12% per annum that too from the date of accident i.e. 10.12.2007. The rate of interest awarded by the learned Commissioner is very excessive and contrary to the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a Regular First Appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard on both facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7470 of 2009, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 and argued that the learned Commissioner has awarded 12% interest per annum from the date of death of the deceased i.e. 12.12.2007. 4. Perused the impugned judgment and award dated 23.4.2009 passed by the Id. Commissioner. 5. 4. Perused the impugned judgment and award dated 23.4.2009 passed by the Id. Commissioner. 5. The present appeal was admitted on 3.8.2009. The question as to when does the payment of compensation under the Act “becomes due” and consequently what is the point of time from which interest on such amount is payable as provided under Section 4-A (3) of the Act remains no more res integra. 6. While dealing with on the aforesaid question of law the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, (supra) has held as under: 20. The grant of interest on the awarded sum is governed by Section 4A of the Act. The question as to when does the payment of compensation under the Act “becomes due” and consequently what is the point of time from which interest on such amount is payable as provided under Section 4A (3) of the Act remains no more res integra and is settled by the two decisions of this Court. 21. As early as in 1975, a four Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289 : AIR 1976 SC 222 speaking through Singhal, J. has held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman in the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. It was accordingly held that it is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim, which is material. 22. Another question analogues to the main question arose before the Three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K., (1999) 8 SCC 254 : AIR 1999 SC 3502 as to whether increased amount of compensation and enhanced rate of interest brought on statute by amending Act 30/1995 with effect from 15.09.1995 would also apply to cases in which the accident took place before 15.09.1995. Their lordships, placing reliance on the law laid down in Pratap Narain's case, (supra) held that since the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim by the Commissioner and hence if the accident has taken place prior to 15.09.1995, the rate applicable on the date of accident would govern the subject. 23. After these two decisions, this Court in two cases (both by the Two Judge Bench) viz. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed, (2007) 2 SCC 349 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohmad Nasir, (2009) 6 SCC 280 without noticing the law laid down in Pratap Narain and Valsala cases, (supra) took a contrary view and held that 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. 24. This conflict of view in the decisions on the question was noticed by this Court (Two Juage Bench) in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Siby George, (2012) 12 SCC 540 . Justice Aftab Alam speaking for the Bench referred to aforementioned decisions and explaining the ratio of each decision held that since the two later decisions rendered in the cases of Mubasir and Mohmad Nasir, (supra) which took contrary view without noticing the earlier two decisions of this Court rendered in Pratap Narain and Valsala cases, (supra) by the larger Benches (combination of four and three Judges respectively) and hence later decisions rendered in Mubasir and Mohmad Nasir cases (supra) cannot be held to have laid down the correct principles of law on the question and nor can, therefore, be treated as binding precedent on the question. 25. In other words, the law laid down in Pratap Narain and Valsala cases, (supra) was held to hold the field through out as laying down the correct principle of law on the subject. The Two Judge Bench in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Siby George, (supra) accordingly followed the principle of law laid down in Pratap Narain and Valsala cases, (supra) and decided the case instead of following the law laid down in Mubasir and Mohmad Nasir cases, (supra) whieh was held per incuriam. 28. In our opinion, the aforementioned direction of the Commissioner in awarding the interest on the awarded sum is contrary to law laid down by this Court in Pratap Narain's case, (supra) and hence not legally sustainable. 7. In the light of forgoing discussion, the Id. Commissioner has rightly awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident. 8. The appeal filed by the appellant is without any substance and accordingly stands dismissed. 7. In the light of forgoing discussion, the Id. Commissioner has rightly awarded interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident. 8. The appeal filed by the appellant is without any substance and accordingly stands dismissed. In the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (supra) the claimants are entitled to get interest on the awarded sum from the date of accident and not from the date of adjudication of the claim case.