JUDGMENT
J.M. Malik, J.
1. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the respondents and as such, the respondents were proceeded against ex parte vide orders passed by my learned predecessor on 29th November, 2006.
2. I have heard counsel for the appellants. Learned Counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention towards para 14 of the order passed by Shri S.P. Singh, Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The said para is produced ver batim:
14. Considering the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a “Social Welfare Association”. Further considering the facts that the appellant had waited a year to get the applied amount of compensation in the interest of justice, I hereby allow her interest @ 12% from the date of order i.e. 26/05/2004 to 04/05/2005 i.e. the date that the balance payment was made to her i.e. Rs. 35,657.00 (Rupees Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Seven Only).
3. The appellants have picked up a conflict with this order and pointed out that as per Section 4A Clause 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the interest has to be paid within one month from the date it fell due. Section 4A Clause 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, is reproduced as under:
(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall-
(a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the official Gazette, on the amount due; and….
4. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent No. 3/management had not deposited the compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, (hereinafter referred to as “the Commissioner”) within 30 days of the death of the deceased Subhash Chand, which in the instant case took place on 11.8.2001 and consequently, the respondent/management is liable to pay interest and penalty within one month from the date it fell due.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued with vehemence that the claim becomes dues on the date of death of the employee. In support of his case, he has cited an authority reported in R.S.R.T.C. v. Smt. Anand Kanwar and Ors. 1958 (56) FLR 762 Rajasthan : 1968(2) LLN 838, wherein it was held that the claim becomes due on the date of the death of the employee. Had the employer taken steps to inform the Commissioner or to pay the amount of compensation, the legal representatives would not have suffered for such a long period and therefore, the interest from the date it fell due has to be awarded.
6. However, I do not hold with these views. The Apex Court in a recent case, Civil Appeal Nos. 5623, 5624 and 5625/2006 titled as National Insurance Company Limited v. Mubasir Ahmed and Anr. decided on 1st February, 2007, was pleased to observe:
8. Interest is payable under Section 4A(3) if there is default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date is fell due. The question of liability under Section 4A was dealt with by this Court in Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh . By Amending Act, 14 of 1995, Section 4A of the Act was amended, inter alia, fixing the minimum rate of interest to be simple interest @ 12%. In the instant case, the accident took place after the amendment and, therefore, the rate of 12% as fixed by the High Court cannot be faulted. But the period as fixed by it is wrong. The starting point is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due. Obviously it cannot be the date of accident. Since no indication is there as when it becomes due, it has to be taken to be the date of adjudication of the claim. This appears to be so because Section 4A(1) prescribes that compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The compensation becomes due on the basis of adjudication of the claim made. The adjudication under Section 4 in some cases involves the assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner. Unless adjudication is done, question of compensation becoming due does not arise. The position becomes clearer on a reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 4A. It provides that provisional payment to the extent of admitted liability has to be made when employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed. The crucial expression is “falls due”. Significantly, legislature has not used the expression “from the date of accident”. Unless there is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise.
7. In the light of the discussion above, I am of the view that this appeal is meritless. FAO 150/2006 is accordingly dismissed. Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.