Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1152 (RAJ)

Rajjo @ Rajwati v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2025-04-23

MANEESH SHARMA

body2025
ORDER : MANEESH SHARMA, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 on behalf of the appellant against the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Dholpur in Case No. WC/F/7/1994, whereby the claimants/appellants have been wrongly deprived of the interest payable under the award dated 27.09.1994. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the deceased-Late Sh. Harishankar @ Pappu husband of appellant No.1 and the father of appellant Nos.2 to 4 was working as driver on Truck No. CIW-7189 and on 18.07.1993 when some anti-social elements attacked on him and ultimately, due to gun-shot he died. 3. The appellant filed a claim petition against the award dated 27.09.1994 before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Dholpur (for brevity the Commissioner). The Commissioner vide its award dated 27.09.1994 awarded a sum of Rs.85,428/- to the appellant against the present respondent No.2 only. 4. Initially, the award was passed ex-parte therefore, the respondent No.2 herein preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.715/1996 before this Court challenging the aforesaid order and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.11.2004 and the following directions were passed:- "Without entering into the merit of the case. I am of the considered opinion that in case the petitioner deposits the original amount of the award, the respondent No.1-Court of Workman Compensation, Bharatpur is directed to hear the matter afresh only on the question whether the liability is on the petitioner or the Insurance Company as the dispute is between the petitioner and the Insurance Company with regarding to the responsibility fastened by the respondent No.1. So far as amount of award is concerned, the respondent No.1 need not to agitate the matter afresh. Accordingly, the award dated 30.11.1996 is modified and rest part of the award is maintained. The amount which has been deposited by the petitioner be forthwith disbursed to the claimant. For the purpose of interest, after fastening the liability the respondent No.1 is required to pass the order and the person concerned, who is held responsible shall make the payment of interest. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of." 5. The amount which has been deposited by the petitioner be forthwith disbursed to the claimant. For the purpose of interest, after fastening the liability the respondent No.1 is required to pass the order and the person concerned, who is held responsible shall make the payment of interest. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of." 5. After the directions of this Court the matter was re-heard by learned Commissioner and the Commissioner vide impugned award dated 27.09.1994 awarded compensation against the respondent No.1- Insurance Company but so far as the interest is concerned, the respondent No.1 has been exonerated. Being aggrieved of such exoneration of the Insurance Company qua the interest amount, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the directions passed by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.715/1996 though there was no ambiguity with regard to award of interest as the direction of the Court was very clear that "respondent No.1 is required to pass the order and the person concerned who is held responsible shall make the payment of interest." 7. That the appellant further submitted that the findings recorded by learned Commissioner under the impugned order that respondent No.1- Insurance Company is not liable to pay interest amount is perverse in the eye of law. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is a substantial question of law involved in the appeal, therefore, the appeal may be entertained and order may be quashed. Substantial question of law involved is reproduced herein-below: "(i) Whether it was just and proper for the Court of Commissioner Workman Compensation, Dholpur to deprive the appellants from the payment of interest particularly when this Hon'ble Court had specifically ordered in its order dated 30.11.2004 that the person concerned who is held responsible to pay the compensation shall make the payment of interest and when the appellants have been deprived of payment of compensation for a period of more than ten years for no fault on their part?" 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1- Insurance Company vehemently opposed the said submissions and sup- ported the impugned order. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1- Insurance Company vehemently opposed the said submissions and sup- ported the impugned order. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is that since they are not having knowledge about passing the award dated 27.09.1994 as Insurance Company was not impleaded party at the first instance, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of interest. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, it is an undisputed fact that the claim petition was allowed at first instance vide order dated 27.09.1994 and compensation was determined as Rs.85,428/-. 11. Since the initial order was passed ex parte, respondent No.1- Insurance Company was not impleaded therein. The Insurance Company was impleaded subsequent to disposing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.715/1996 with the directions. While remanding the writ petition, the respondent was directed to pass a fresh order holding the liability of the respondent and it was further directed that the person concern, who is held responsible shall make the payment of interest, in the present case though liability to pay compensation has been fastened on Insurance Company, but the reasons given by learned Commissioner exonerating the Insurance Company to make payment of interest is contrary to directions of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.715/1996 dated30.11.2004. 12. Thus, the directions to exonerate Insurance Company qua interest and not held liable to make payment of interest amount is per se illegal being contrary to directions of this Court. 13. 12. Thus, the directions to exonerate Insurance Company qua interest and not held liable to make payment of interest amount is per se illegal being contrary to directions of this Court. 13. It is a trite law that in appeal, Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act is maintainable only on the ground of question of law and in the present case, learned Commissioner has committed a serious illegality in not fastening the liability of interest upon Insurance Company despite passing of the order by this Court, from the record of the case it is clear that following substantial question of law involved in the matter:- "(i) Whether it was just and proper for the Court of Commissioner Workman Compensation, Dholpur to deprive the appellants from the payment of interest particularly when this Hon'ble Court had specifically ordered in its order dated 30.11.2004 that the person concerned who is held responsible to pay the compensation shall make the payment of interest and when the appellants have been deprived of payment of compensation for a period of more than ten years for no fault on their part?" 14. Since, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner though held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation but denied the interest over the compensation without any justiciable reason, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Dholpur qua exonerating the Insurance Company from liability to pay interest is peverse being contrary to earlier directions passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.715/1996. 15. The above question of law is answered in favour of the appellant. 16. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 11.10.2006 is modified and the respondent No.1-Insurance Company is directed to pay interest amount @ 9% p.a. upon the compensation amount of Rs.85,428/- to the appellant from 27.11.1994 till the date the claim amount was deposited by employee. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the above extent, no order as to costs.