JUDGMENT: The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity “the Act”) aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2021, passed in E.C.No.06 of 2018 by the learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narasaraopet. (for short “the Commissioner”). 2. The Appellants herein are the applicants/claimants and the respondents herein are the Opposite Parties in E.C No.06 of 2018. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Commissioner. 3. The applicants have filed the impugned E.C.No.06 of 2018 before the Commissioner claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in respect of death of the workman Late Redya Naik, S/o Bodya Naik (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 in the course of his employment under the Opposite Party No.2. The facts of the case are that on 01.11.2016 at about 12.00 p.m. while the deceased was on duty at 13th gate of Dam gallery and at 12.30 p.m., it was informed by one Ramanji that the deceased was found unconscious on the floor at Dam gallery site and immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Macherla and the doctor confirmed that the deceased died and the same was informed to the Rentachintala P.S and thereafter a case in Crime No.96 of 2016 was registered. Postmortem was also conducted on the body of the deceased and in that report, it was clearly mentioned that the cause of death is due to “Electric Shock”. The deceased was aged 35 years and getting salary of Rs.10,500/- p.m. The applicants have issued legal notices to the Opposite parties requesting for compensation, but in vain. Hence, the present application. 4. The Opposite Party No.3 filed their counter while denying the allegations made in the application, stated that, as per the FIR, the deceased was fits patient and due to illness he frequently fells down due to fits. No ill health person be employed for labour work and there is no mention about electric shock as well as casual labour in the FIR. The Opposite Party No.2 has not submitted the name of the deceased to them and no policy was covered casual labour employees as such the application is not maintainable. It is further stated that the amount of compensation claimed by the applicants is highly excessive and without any basis. The Opposite Party No.2 has not submitted the name of the deceased to them and no policy was covered casual labour employees as such the application is not maintainable. It is further stated that the amount of compensation claimed by the applicants is highly excessive and without any basis. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the application filed by the applicants. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Commissioner has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, or not, under Opposite party No.1? 2. Amount of compensation payable to the claimants? 3. Who are liable to pay the compensation? 6. During course of trial, on behalf of the applicants, AW.1 and AW.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. On behalf of the Opposite parties, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. 7. The learned Commissioner, after hearing on both sides passed an order holding that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation being the Principal Employer, Contractor and Insurer as per the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act 1923. Hence directed the parties to deposit an amount of Rs.7,64,780/- by means of Demand Draft drawn in favour of Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, Guntur on State Bank of India, Guntur within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and submit the DD in the office for further action. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed by the applicants. 8. Heard Sri K. Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri M. Vidya Sagar, Sri T.S. Rayalu and Sri Dilip Jayaram, learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 9. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the order passed in E.C No.6 of 2018 in so far as not granting total compensation and the interest thereon, is concerned, is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. 9. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the order passed in E.C No.6 of 2018 in so far as not granting total compensation and the interest thereon, is concerned, is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. He contended that the learned Commissioner ought to have taken the age of the deceased employee as 32 years instead of 37 years and he also ought to have granted the total compensation as claimed in the said E.C. together with interest thereon, instead of granting compensation amount of Rs..7,64,780/- without granting any interest for the said compensation amount. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to consider the said facts and allow the appeal by relying on the substantial question of law, which reads as: i) Whether the learned Assistant Commissioner of Labour is right in not granting the interest for the compensation amount awarded in the order dated 31.8.2021 passed in E.C.No.06 of 2018? ii) Whether the learned Assistant Commissioner of labour has failed to grant interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing the case i.e., on 1.11.2016 on the compensation amount of Rs.7,64,780/- awarded in the order dated 31.8.2021 passed in E.C No.6 of 2018? 10. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following decisions: (i) In a case reported in K. Sivaraman and others versus P.Sathishkumar and another, (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 594 and (ii) Ajaya Kumar Das and another vs Divisional Manager and another, 2022 LawSuit(SC)98, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “the benefit of the amending act enhancing the quantum of compensation would not apply to accidents that took place prior to the coming into force of the amendment. And also held that “The total compensation payable to the appellant shall stand quantified at Rs.8,8,120/- on which interest shall be payable @ 12% p.a. from the date of the accident.” (iii) And in another case reported in The Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited versus Harijana P.Israil and others, Law Finder Doc Id#2010336, wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that – the claimant is entitled for interest on compensation from the date of accident, till its payment. If such amount i.e., the compensation with interest from the date of accident as determined under the award of the Commissioner is not paid, within one month from the date of award, the employer would also be further liable for imposition of penalty as provided under Section 4A(1)(b) of the WC Act, in cases where the delay in payment of compensation, after one month from the date of the award is without jurisdiction”. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed for grant of relief as claimed by the applicants/appellants and denied all the allegations made in the application. He submits that it is an undisputed fact that the deceased has worked as a casual labour under the control of Opposite Party No.2/2nd respondent herein. He submits that while executing certain works under his control, the 1st appellant’s husband late Ramavat Redya Naik has fell down and he was immediately moved to Macherla Government Hospital for treatment while undergoing treatment he died. Later PM was conducted to the deceased and the PMC report was issued on 25.11.2016 by Macherla Government Hospital. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants have filed the claim application before the learned Commissioner but the Commissioner has not considered the contentions raised by the APGENCO. The 1st respondent/APGENCO has denied the fact that the deceased was never employed under the Corporation, hence the liability does not vests with 1st respondent. Whereas, it was clearly stated that the deceased was working as casual labour under the control of 2nd respondent and the 2nd respodne4tn has also paid insurance for the deceased and the same was marked as exhibits. In spite of all the evidence filed by the respondents the Commissioner has passed an order to pay a sum of Rs.7,64,780/- on 31.8.2021. He further submits that the respondent Corporation has preferred an appeal against the orders of the Commissioner and the same was numbered as WP No.22896 of 2021 which is pending before this Court. In that Writ Petition, it was clearly stated by the APGECO that the deceased was never engaged in 1st party corporation whereas he worked under the control of 2nd party who is contractor and the 2nd respondent has made an Insurance Policy and the same was marked as exhibit in E.C. No.6 of 2018. In that Writ Petition, it was clearly stated by the APGECO that the deceased was never engaged in 1st party corporation whereas he worked under the control of 2nd party who is contractor and the 2nd respondent has made an Insurance Policy and the same was marked as exhibit in E.C. No.6 of 2018. Therefore, there is no liability vests on the APGENCO to pay compensation since the deceased was never an employee of the corporation and it is an admitted that the deceased has worked under the control of 2nd respondent in turn the 2nd respondent has paid insurance in the name of the deceased. 12. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is observed that, during the course of examinations, AW1 deposed that since her husband died during the course of his employment under OP No.2 as a casual labour, being the Principal Employer, Contractor and Insurer all the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation. AW2 deposed that himself and the deceased were working on the date of incident. As seen from the examination of RW1, he deposed that their company issued an Insurance policy to the OP No.2 for the period from 14.10.2016 to 13.11.2016 for coverage of two employees. On 1.11.2016 the deceased was not attended to his duties in NSTPDHED, Satrasala. He attended his duties upto 31.10.2016 only. As such the death of the deceased is not covered into the policy because at the time of death of the deceased status is not as an employee as such OP No.3 is not liable to pay compensation under the policy. Further as seen from cross examination, RW2 admitted that the deceased was died during the course of employment in an accident that occurred on 1.11.2016 and the muster was made while the worker was present. 13. It is further observed from the impugned order that, it was argued by the OP No.3 side that, it is also mentioned in FIR report about the fits of the deceased prior to the incident. There is a possibility of the incident through fits. It is a skilled labour policy and as such the applicants are not entitled for any relief from the insurance company. There is a possibility of the incident through fits. It is a skilled labour policy and as such the applicants are not entitled for any relief from the insurance company. It is admitted fact that the employment, incident, death of the deceased etc were clearly established in the report of FIR, PM Report and admission by RW.2 in their evidence and also it is very clear from the exhibits filed by the appellants. So, it is true that the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuries, he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the 2nd respondent/OP No.2 as a casual labour. 14. In view of the above foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that as the deceased was aged 35 years and getting salary of Rs.10,500/- p.m. during the course of his employment and that the learned Commissioner has not taken into consideration the age group of the deceased, without applying its mind, simply awarded an amount of Rs.Rs.7,64,780/-. It appears that the Commissioner was wrong in not granting any interest whatsoever to the appellants, except by way of a default clause, which is contrary to the established principles relating to payment of interest on money claims. 15. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and on considering the judgment of K. Sivaraman’s case (Supra 1) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that the total compensation payable to the appellant shall stand quantified compensation on which interest shall be paid @ 12%p.a. from the date of accident. Therefore, the compensation so determined is an amount which the claimant is legally entitled to receive on the date of accident. Hence, this Court is inclined to modify the order of the Commissioner dated 31.08.2021, passed in E.C.No.06 of 2018 and directed that the awarded sum will carry interest at the rate of 12% simple interest per annum from the date of accident till its payment. 16. Accordingly, the C.M.A is partly allowed only to the extent of interest. Hence, this Court is inclined to modify the order of the Commissioner dated 31.08.2021, passed in E.C.No.06 of 2018 and directed that the awarded sum will carry interest at the rate of 12% simple interest per annum from the date of accident till its payment. 16. Accordingly, the C.M.A is partly allowed only to the extent of interest. It is made clear that the respondents are directed to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Commissioner along with interest as stated supra within a period of TWO (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.