F.A.O.No.4815 of 2007 (O&M) :1:
*****
United India Insurance Company Limited
Vs.
Mangej Devi & others
Present: Mr.Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate,
for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The application is filed by Mangej Devi widow of Chander
Singh @ Ram Chander and Gulab Singh son of Chander Singh @
Ram Chander, residents of village Dhansu, Tehsil and District Hisar.
The applicants claimed compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs along with the
interest on account of death of Kamal, who allegedly died during the
course of employment with respondent Nos.3 and 4. Kamal is son of
respondent Mangej Devi and brother of Gulab Singh. Deceased was
working as a driver with respondent Nos.3 and 4 on their jeep on a
monthly salary of Rs.3500/- plus Rs.50/- as daily allowance. On
25.1.2003, in the vicinity of Petrol Pump near village Jakhoda on
National Highway No.10 on Rohtak-Delhi road, the jeep met with an
accident with Tata-407 vehicle No.HR-46A/4278 leading to death of
Kamal. The deceased was 24 years of age. The accident was within
the knowledge of the appellants and they still did not discharge their
liability towards the claimant-respondents despite demand leading to
filing of the claim petition.
In support of the claim, Mangej Devi appeared as a
F.A.O.No.4815 of 2007 (O&M) :2:
witness. She also proved on record the copy of notice, Exh. P-1 and
postal receipts, Exhs.P-2, P-3 and P-4. Mahesh Kumar, respondent
No.4, appeared as RW-1. No evidence was led on behalf of
respondent No.3 despite opportunities and accordingly the evidence
of respondent No.3 was closed on 15.5.2007.
The Commissioner, while deciding the claim appreciated
the evidence and held that the respondent-claimants had every
cause to file the claim petition. Commissioner also found that Kamal
was employed as a driver by respondent No.4 on the monthly salary
of Rs.3500/- and he died during the course of employment. The
claimants were found dependent on the deceased being his mother
and brother and thus were entitled to compensation under Section 2
(d) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”).
The order passed by the Commissioner has been impugned through
the present appeal.
The sole submission made before me by the counsel for
the appellant is that the interest in this case was awardable from the
date of adjudication, but not from the date of accident. In support of
his submission, the counsel has referred to the case of National
Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and another, 2007(2) Punjab
Law Reporter 188. The counsel would contend that the interest is
payable under Section 4A(3) if there is default in paying the
compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it
fell due. It is on this basis, the counsel would contend that interest in
this case would be payable from the date of the adjudication as prior
to that date the liability was not determined and default in payment of
compensation can not be urged.
F.A.O.No.4815 of 2007 (O&M) :3:
The submissions made by the counsel for the appellant
are misplaced. Interest is payable under Section 4A(3) if there is
default in paying the compensation due under the Act within one
month from the date it fell due. Thus, the starting point, as held in the
case of Mubasir Ahmed (supra) is on completion of one month from
the date it fell due. Section 4-A(1) clearly provides that compensation
under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. Section 4-A (2)
further provides that in case when employer does not accept the
liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to
make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he
accepts. Objects and reasons of the section would show that this
provision is made in order to ensure that the workman is able to get
whatever amount the employer is prepared to pay immediately
pending a decision on the amount of compensation actually due. As
per Section 3, if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident
arising out of and in the course of employment his employer shall be
liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter. Compensation, thus, would fall due as soon as the accident
takes place causing death or disablement of the workman. In Pratap
Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another, AIR 1976 SC 222
it is held that the liability of the employer arises as soon as the injury
is caused and not at any subsequent occasion. It is further observed
that provisions of Section 19 which provide a machinery for
settlement of the claim by the Commissioner does not have the
effect of suspending the liability of an employer to pay the
compensation till after the settlement contemplated by Section 19. It
is held as duty of the employer to pay compensation at the rate
F.A.O.No.4815 of 2007 (O&M) :4:
provided by Section 4 as soon as the personal injury is caused to the
workman. It would be of advantage to quote relevant observations of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard:-
“Section 3 of the Act deals with the employer’s liability for
compensation. Sub-section (1) of that section provides
that the employer shall be liable to pay compensation if
“personal injury is caused to a workman by accident
arising out of and in the course of his employment.” It was
not the case of the employer that the right to
compensation was taken away under sub-section (5) of
Section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil court
for damages, in respect of the injury, against the
employer or any other person. The employer therefore
became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the
aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by
the accident, which admittedly arose out of and in the
course of the employment. It is therefore futile to contend
that the compensation did not fall due until after the
Commissioner’s order dated May 6, 1969 under Section
19. What the section provides is that if any question
arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the liability of
any person to pay compensation or as to the amount or
duration of the compensation it shall, in default of
agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. There is
therefore nothing to justify the argument that the
employer’s liability to pay compensation under Section 3,
in respect of the injury, was suspended until after the
F.A.O.No.4815 of 2007 (O&M) :5:settlement contemplated by Section 19. The appellant
was thus liable to pay compensation as soon as the
aforesaid personal injury was caused to the appellant,
and there is no justification for the argument to the
contrary.”
This four Judges bench decision appears to have
escaped notice in the case of Mubasir Ahmed which in any case
appears to have been decided having regard to peculiar facts of its
own. Section 3 of the Act gives clear indication that compensation is
payable from the date of injury. Non deposit would make the
employer liable for penalty and interest. If there is default in payment
of compensation, interest must be paid whatever may be the reason
for non-payment. It is also held in Ramlal and others v. Regional
Manager, Food Corporation of India, Jaipur and others, 1981 LAB.
I.C. 1281 and Ram Dulari Kalia v. HPSE Board, 1987 LAB.I.C.748
that compensation falls due within the meaning of Section 4-A on the
happening of the accident and liability of payment of interest and
penalty arises if so directed, when default is made by the employer in
payment of compensation within one month due from the date it falls
due.
In the instant case, the date of accident was well within
the knowledge of the respondent-employees as they were aware of
the accident and the death of the deceased on whose behalf the
respondents had made this claim. The compensation, thus, fell due
on the happening of the accident. Since the compensation was not
paid within one month from the date of the accident despite demand,
it has been rightly concluded that the compensation would be
F.A.O.No.4815 of 2007 (O&M) :6:
payable within one month from the date of the accident. No
justification is seen to interfere in the view taken by the
Compensation Commissioner. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
August 18, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE