Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/3829/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3829 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 14321 of 2010
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3829 of 2010
=========================================================
NEW
INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD - Appellant(s)
Versus
NAIKA
LAXMANBHAI RAVJIBHAI FATHER OF LATE BALWANTSINH & 2 -
Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
HASMUKH THAKKER for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR NALIN K THAKKER for Defendant(s) : 1 -
2.
None for Defendant(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 06/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
appeal has been filed against the judgment and award passed by the
learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court, Kutch at
Gandhidham in W.C. (Fatal) Case No.2 of 2007 dated 26.04.2010,
whereby, the said case was allowed and the appellant-Insurance
Company has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.3,92,000/-
before the Tribunal along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of
accident till its realization. Further, respondent no.3 herein was
directed to pay penalty of Rs.1,96,000/- to the original applicants @
50% of the awarded principle amount. The appellant-Insurance Company
was held liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded to the
original applicants along with interest @ 12% p.a.
2. The
facts in brief are that deceased Balwantsinh, son of respondent nos.1
& 2 herein, original claimants, was serving as a skilled labourer
and was employed by respondent no.3-Contractor. On 20.08.2005 while
the deceased son of respondent nos.1 & 2 was moving the cement
pole with an iron rod at the place of employment, the iron rod
slipped and struck on the chest of the deceased. In the said
accident, the deceased sustained severe injuries and ultimately,
succumbed to the injuries. As no compensation was paid, respondent
nos.1 & 2 filed the claim petition before the learned authority,
which came to be allowed by way of the impugned award. Hence, this
appeal.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The main contention raised by the appellant-Insurance
Company is that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay Interest
under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and that
the employer is liable to pay Interest to the workman or his
dependent, as the case may be, in view of the provisions of Section
4-A(3)(a) of the said Act. I find substance in the above contention
raised by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company as this
would not fall u/s.30 of the said Act.
4. Considering
the facts of the case, the appellant-Insurance is granted liberty to
raise the above contention before the executing Court while executing
the impugned award. In such case, the executing Court concerned shall
pass appropriate orders against the person, who is required to pay
the amount of interest, after examining the latest law on the
subject.
5. With
the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top