AJAYA KUMAR DAS & Anr. v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER & Anr.

HELD: 1.1 The judgment of the High Court is inexplicable. Having dismissed the appeal of the insurer on the ground of limitation, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere on merits with the award of interest on compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923. The error on the part of the High Court has led a labourer and his spouse to travel all the way to this Court. Though the accident took place in 2000, the course of litigation would now end only with the present judgment. The High Court has erred on merits as well. Section 4A of the 1923 Act stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding the lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer 468 AJAYA KUMAR DAS v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER 469 does not pay the compensation within one month from the date it fell due. Interest shall be paid on the compensation awarded from the date of the accident. Thus, there was no legal basis for the High Court to delete the order of payment of interest, and the said direction is set aside. The order for the payment of interest by the Commissioner together with the award of compensation is restored. [Paras 5, 6][470-G-H; 471-A-B, D-F]

1.2 Though the first respondent has not appeared in these proceedings, despite service of notice, an award of costs is necessary since the appellants have been compelled to move this Court against a palpably erroneous order of the High Court passed in an appeal filed beyond limitation by the respondent. The insurer took the contest to the High Court in an appeal barred by limitation. A well-resourced insurance company has used its position of dominance to evade the cause of justice. Such strategies must be eschewed. In addition to the compensation and interest which have been awarded, the appellants would be entitled to costs quantified at Rs 50,000. [Para 7][471-F-G; 472-A]