1 - Nan Bai Widow Of Late Heeralal Aged About 50 Years R/o Lingiyadeeh v. 1 - Shashikant Gupta Son Of
Case Details
Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.08.06 14:40:28 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:38765 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1392 of 2023 1 - Nan Bai Widow Of Late Heeralal Aged About 50 Years R/o Lingiyadeeh, Police Station - Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) versus 1 - Shashikant Gupta Son Of Shri Surendra Prasad Gupta, R/o Panjabi Basti, Tilda, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Owner Of Bolero No. Cg/04/hu/7492) ... Appellant 2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, New Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Bolero No. Cg/04/hu/7492) ... Respondents For appellant For respondent No. 1 : Mr. Suresh Verma, Adv. For respondent No. 2 : Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Adv. : Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J ) Order on Board 31/07/2025 1 Appellant/applicant has preferred this MAC against the award (Annexure A-1) (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned award’) dated 25- 3-2023 passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur (CG) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commissioner’) in case No. 9/EC Act/2018 (Fatal), whereby the claim case filed by the appellant/applicant has been allowed and Rs. 8,94,635/- towards compensation, penalty Rs. 2,23,659/-, last rites expenses Rs. 5,000/-, total Rs. 11,23,294/- and 9% interest per annum from the date of accident, has been awarded to the applicant, which shall be payable by 2 the respondent No. 1 Shashikant Gupta. The respondent No. 2/non- applicant No. 2 has been exonerated from liability to pay compensation. (hereinafter, parties shall be referred to has per their description before the learned Commissioner) 2
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case, as projected in the claim application, are that applicant No. 2 is mother of the deceased Nilesh and applicant No. 1 (died during pendency of the claim case) was father of the deceased Nilesh. Non-applicant No. 1 is owner of the vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. CG- 04/HU-7492 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) and non-applicant No. 2 is insurer of the offending vehicle. On 05.11.2017, the deceased Nilesh was driving the said offending vehicle at a balanced speed, the vehicle met with an accident near Banjhorka Siddh Baba Temple, in which, Nilesh died. The accident was reported at the police station Gaurela. The deceased employee Nilesh worked as a driver in the said vehicle and was driving the said vehicle as per the instructions of his employer. At the time of the accident, the deceased Nilesh was 24 years old and was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 8,000/- and a daily allowance of Rs. 100/- from non-applicant no. 1. Non-applicant no. 1 was aware of the accident, despite that, he has not paid any compensation amount. Rs. 55,000/- have been spent on rituals. Therefore, the applicants filed claim petition under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘Act of 1923’) claiming Rs. 8,78,880/- as compensation, penalty Rs. 4,36,940/- and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date 3 4 3 of accident against the non-applicants jointly and separately. Non-applicant No. 1 was given an opportunity to file a reply. At the stage of filing the reply, non-applicant No. 1 remained absent, hence he was proceeded ex-parte. Non-applicant No. 2 filed its reply opposing the claim application, denying the accident and employment of the deceased by the non- applicant No. 1. It has been pleaded by it that, the details of the accident have not been submitted by the applicant, the non-applicant No. 1 has not given any information about the accident to the insurance company. There has been no accident and deceased was not in the employment of non-applicant No. 1. It has been further pleaded that, in a case of accident, owner is required to inform the insurance company about paid driver, documents of the vehicle, RC book, permit, fitness, driving licence of the driver,etc., but the same has not been given to the insurance company. The non-applicant No. 1 has not given any information regarding the accident or certificate of appointment of deceased, salary register, voucher etc. to the non- applicant No. 2, therefore, the non-applicant No. 2 is not liable to pay compensation. 5 On the basis of pleading of the parties, learned Commissioner framed as many as 5 issues, recorded evidence of the parties and vide impugned award, awarded compensation amount to the applicant as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment against non-applicant No. 1. Learned Commissioner awarded interest at the rate of 9% per 4 annum, on the amount of compensation from the date of accident, penalty and last rites expenses, total Rs. 11,23,294/- and directed non- applicant No. 1 to pay aforesaid amount within a period of 30 days to the applicant. Learned Commissioner exonerated the non-applicant No. 2/Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation. 6 Being aggrieved by the impugned award (Annexure A-1), the applicant has preferred this appeal praying for 12% interest on the amount of compensation and for fastening the liability to pay compensation upon the non-applicant No. 2/Insurance company. 7 This appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law :- “1. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, Labour, Court, Bilaspur has erred in law in granting interest @ 9% per annum ? 2. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur has erred in law in exonerating Insurance Company from payment of amount of compensation ?” 8
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that, the learned Commissioner has erred in law in not granting interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which is provided in the Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Act of 1923 itself. He further submits that, the learned Commissioner has also erred in fastening the liability to pay compensation on the owner/non- 5 applicant No. 1. It has to be fastened upon the non-applicant No. 2. Hence, the appeal may be allowed and the interest may be enhanced from 9% per annum to 12% per annum and laibility to pay compensation may be fastened on non-applicant No. 2/Insurance Company. 9 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/non-applicant No. 1 submits that learned Commissioner has erred in fastening the liability upon the respondent No. 1. On the basis of the evidence available on record, liability ought to have been fastened upon the respondent No. 2/ Insurance Company. For interest part, learned counsel submits that, learned Commissioner has rightly awarded 9% interest on the amount of compensation, which need not be enhanced to 12%. 10 Learned counsel for the appellant No. 2/Insurance Company submits that, from the evidence available on record, it has been proved that, at the time of accident, the deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence. Neither the applicant nor the non-applicant No. 1 have adduced any documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was having any valid driving licence. So far as interest is concerned, he submits that, learned Commissioner has rightly awarded 9% interest on the amount of compensation. Hence, instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on the record of the case as well as record of the Commissioner. 6 12 First, I will consider the substantial question No. 1 framed by this Court, as to whether the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur has erred in law in granting interest @ 9% per annum ? 13 So far as interest granted on amount of compensation is concerned, perusal of the impugned award shows that, the Commissioner has granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident. Section 4-A (3)(a) of the Act of 1923 deals with interest to be awarded on the amount of compensation, which is reproduced hereinbelow :- “4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.— (1) xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (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…..” 14 Thus, in view of above provision, granting 9% interest on the amount of compensation, is completely illegal. Rate of interest payable on the 7 amount of compensation has already been provided in statute i.e. Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act of 1923 to be 12%. Hence, the applicant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% on the amount of compensation. However, interest on the amount of penalty is not covered under Section 4(A)(3)(a) of the Act of 1923. Therefore, interest on the penalty granted by the Commissioner is not found to be enhanced. Hence, the question No. 1 is answered in affirmative form in favour of the applicant. 15 Now, I will consider the substantial question No. 2, as to whether the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, Labour Court, Bilaspur has erred in law in exonerating Insurance Company from payment of amount of compensation ? 16 Learned Commissioner has exonerated the applicant No. 2/Insurance Company from liability to pay compensation, on the ground that at the time of accident, the deceased/driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence. 17 Undisputedly, for the relevant time, offending vehicle was insured by the non-applicant No. 2/Insurance Company vide insurance policy (Ex. D-1), which has also been proved by V. Triky (NAW 1), witness of the Insurance company. As per terms of the Insurance policy also, liability could be fastened upon the Insurance company, if the vehicle is being driven by the person having valid and effective driving licence, but in instant case, neither applicant nor non-applicant No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle has proved the fact that, the deceased was having 8 valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. No driving licence in this regard has been filed. Hence, learned Commissioner has not committed any error of law in holding that, since offending vehicle was being driven violating the terms of policy conditions pertaining to driving licence, therefore, liability cannot be fastened upon the Insurance company. Aforesaid finding also gets support from the fact that, non-applicant No. 1/owner of offending vehicle has not filed any appeal against exonerating the non-applicant No. 2/Insurance company from liability to pay compensation. Therefore, substantial question No. 2 is answered in negative form, in favour of the insurance company and against the applicant. 18 Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. It is directed that, in place of interest at the rate of 9% per annum, the appellant/applicant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of accident, on the amount of Compensation of Rs. 8,94,635/- only, as awarded by the Tribunal, which shall be paid by the respondent No. 1/non-applicant No. 1. Rest of the terms of the impugned award passed by learned Commissioner shall remain intact. 19 Appeal is partly allowed to the above extent. 20
Decision
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak