NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT v. SMT. SUJATHA

1.2 The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a Regular First Appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case. [Paras 11-12][1048-C-E]

2.1 When an employer files the appeal, he is under a legal obligation to deposit the entire awarded sum in terms of second proviso to Section 30 of the Act as a pre-condition to file the appeal in the High Court except where the appeal is filed against the order falling in clause (b). It is only when the employer NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SMT. SUJATHA 1045 deposits the entire awarded money along with the memo of appeal duly certified by the Commissioner, his appeal is regarded as being properly filed in conformity with the requirement of Section 30 of the Act. Such appeal is then heard on the question of admission with a view to find out as to whether it involves any substantial question of law or not. Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law or not depends upon the facts of each case and needs an examination by the High Court. If the substantial question of law arises, the High Court would admit the appeal for final hearing on merit else would dismiss in limini with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question/s of law. [Paras 13-15][1048-E-H; 1049-A]

2.2 In the instant case, the appeal before the High Court did not involve any substantial question of law on the material questions. In other words, the Commissioner decided all the material questions arising in the case properly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and rightly determined the compensation payable to the respondent. It was, therefore, rightly affirmed by the High Court on facts. In this view of the matter, the findings being concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below are binding on this Court. Even otherwise, there is no ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. These findings are upheld. [Paras 16, 17][1049-B-C]

#3. The grant of interest on the awarded sum is governed by Section 4-A of the Act. The Commissioner awarded the interest to the respondents at the rate of 12% per annum on the awarded sum but it was awarded from the expiry of 45 days from the date of order and that too, if the appellant failed to deposit the awarded sum within 45 days. This direction of the Commissioner in awarding the interest on the awarded sum is contrary to law laid down in Pratap Narain’s case and hence not legally sustainable. In the light of this, even though the respondent did not challenge this direction yet the question being a pure question of law, this Court with a view to do substantial justice to the respondent consider it just and proper to modify the order of the Commissioner in respondent’s favour. The order of the A B C D E F G H 1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R. Commissioner is modified in favour of the respondent to the extent that the awarded sum of Rs. 3,79,120/- shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 06.04.1999. [Paras 18-20, 26-30][1049-D-E; 1051-B-G]