High Court
Case Details
MFA 75/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI JUDGMENT AND ORDER ( ORAL ) (A.K. Goswami, J)
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appears for the resp ondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 01.10.2002 passed in N.W.C. Case No. 338/2001 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Nagaon, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,56,175/- alongwith simple interest @12% per ann um from the date of accident to the date of deposit to the respondent No. 1, who was employed as handyman in a truck with Registration No. As-02/A-3183, on acco unt of injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident involving the said truc k on 16.10.2001. 3. The appellant insurance company had deposited the amount of Rs.1,56,175/ - on 22.04.2003 before the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. In v iew of the order passed by this Court on 10.02.2012 directing release of 50% of the aforesaid amount in Misc Case No. 421/2012, the learned Tribunal released an amount of Rs. 78,087/- to the respondent No. 1 on 21.02.2012. When the appeal was admitted to be heard on 11.05.2004, no substantial q 4. uestion of law was framed. On 02.03.2012, noticing the same, as a substantial qu estion of law is to be framed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act , 1923, for short, the Act, the Court framed the following substantial question of law: (cid:28)Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in accepting the evidence of the doctor (PW-2) relating to 40% loss of earning capacity, keeping in view the nat ure of injuries sustained by the workman as well as the nature of job for which he was engaged. (cid:29) 5. Today, at the hearing, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant s ubmits that another substantial question of law is required to be framed as to w hether interest can be awarded in case of injury from the date of accident. It i s submitted by him that the law is well settled that under Section 100 of the CP C, the High Court would be at liberty to hear the appeal on any other substantia l question of law, not earlier formulated by it, if the court is satisfied that the case involves such question and the court also records reasons for such sati sfaction. He submits that the analogy can be appropriately drawn in an appeal ar ising out of an award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. 6. A perusal of the materials on record would go to show that such substant ial question of law as suggested by Mr. Dutta does arise in the facts of this ca se and it would be just and proper to formulate the following substantial questi on of law: (cid:28)Whether interest can be awarded in case of injury from the date of accident? (cid:29) 7. With regard to the first substantial question of law formulated by this Court on 02.03.2012, Mr. Dutta submits that the learned Commissioner ought not t o have in a routine manner accepted the evidence of P.W. 2 who had opined that t he workman suffered 40% loss of earning capacity without any basis. Therefore, a ccording to him, it will be necessary for this court to remand the matter to the learned Commissioner for a fresh appraisal, if necessary, by re-examination of P.W. 2. 8. With regard to the substantial question of law formulated today, the lea rned counsel submits that it is no longer res integra that simple interest is to be awarded from the date of adjudication and not from the date of accident and in support of his submission, the learned counsel places reliance on the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Paren Narzary and Anr, reported in 2012 (4) GLT 718. 9. The evidence of P.W. 1 shows that even after lot of treatment, he had no t fully recovered from the fractured injury sustained by him on the wrist. He ha s stated in his evidence that he could not do much work with his right hand. He could not change tyres or wash the vehicle and as such he had left the job of ha
Decision
ndyman. 10. The evidence of P.W. 2 shows that after examination of the injured, he h ad issued a certificate that the workman suffered from disability to the extent of 18%. Accordingly, he had deposed that the workman had suffered 40% loss of ea rning capacity. The records of the learned Commissioner show that there was no c ross-examination of both these witnesses. Order-Sheet of the learned Commissione r also shows that the insurance company did not contest the proceeding inspite o f receipt of notice and the case had proceeded ex-parte. Thus, the evidence of t he witnesses has remained unimpeached. I am also conscious that the Act is a ben eficial piece of legislation. In that view of the matter, I am unable to persua de myself to accept, at this point of time, the submission of Mr. Dutta that it is a case of remand as the learned Commissioner was not justified to award compe nsation taking loss of earning capacity at 40%. 11. With regard to the second substantial question of law, it appears that t he appellant has a point. The submission of the appellant is substantiated in Pa ren Narzary (Supra), wherein this Court, following judgments of the Apex Court, had ordered payment of interest @ 12% per annum from the date of adjudication. 12. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is modified to the extent th at the workman would be entitled to simple interest @ 12% per annum calculated w ith effect from 01.10.2002, instead of 16.10.2001, as indicated in the Judgment, till the date of deposit i.e. 22.04.2003. The interest component shall be depos ited by the appellant within a period of 45 days from today, failing which, inte rest @ 12% per annum will accrue on the aforesaid sum till payment is made. The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of. 13. Send back the records. 14. 15. As the workman/respondent No.1 is not represented by his counsel today, Registry will send a communication to the respondent No. 1 in the address given in the memo of appeal intimating the passing of the judgment. JUDGE P.K. Sinha