The High Court · 2025

'1 . Smt. L.Subhadra, S/o. Bojaram, Aged: MajorRl/o. Wesley Thanda, Post Mentraijpally, Dichpally Mandal, Dist Nizamabad (Owner of the tractor bearing No. AP-25-G-5316 and Trolly No. AP-25-G-9410)

2. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, through its, Divisional lt/anager, Divisional Office, Opp Z.P. Office, Subhashnagar,Nizamabad. (lnsurence of the Tractor bearing NO. AP-25-G-5316 vide insurance cover note No. 123726) valid from 2-06-2001 to 21'-06-2002) and lnsurer of the Trail bearing No.AP-25-G-9410) Vide lnsurance Cover Note No.235789 valid from 1 6 -0 1 - 2OO2 to 2 1 -06 -2002) (Respondent No.1 is not a necessary party as the entire compensation is deposited by respondent No.2 before the Tribunal below) ...Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant: Ms RAKHI SIKHWAL Representing SRI T.V. KALYAN SINGH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri NARESH BYRAPANENI, Standing Counsel for New lndia Assurance Company Limited The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUIVI, I,R JUKANTI CTVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL No.3.l i OF 2o14 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order, dated 01.O9.2O12, in W.C.No. 1ig of 2003 passed by the Commissioner for EmploJ,(,( ,s Compensation_ cum-Deput5r Commissioner of Labour at Nizanr Lbad, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liled.

2. Heard Ms. Rakhi Sikhw,al, learned counsr,l representing Mr. T.V.Kalyan Singh, learnec{ counsel for appellarL. and Mr. Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Standing Counsel appearir g for respondent I.lo.2.

3. The appellant/applicanr filcd an appiicat.< n under Scction 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, jt 23, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/ on account of the injuries a sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 12.O3.2OO2. Commissioner, after considering the depositi,r rs of witnesses AW1, AW2 arrd RWl, Exs.Al to .A9 and Exs.B1 tc 83, arrived at a conclusion that compensation entitled b y appellant is Rs.1,48,149/- and total amount of Rs.i,4g,91 t/- to be paid within 3O da;rs from the date of order, failing vhich it carries interest @12%o per annum. -<-!!-!'! JAK. J 2 4 . Today, whe n the mattcr is called, it is submitted that the question which needs to be considered is only with regard to the interest portion to be paid.

5. Learned counsel for the appeliant relied upon the judgment of this Court, dated 11.O2.2021, passed in CMA.No.289 of 2Ol4 and submitted that the appellant is entitled to interest @12%o per annum, cne month after the date of the accident till the date of realization. This Court is not inclined to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, as this Court rvhile considering a similar issue in C.M.A.No.148 of 2074, considering the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Meka Chakro. Rao u. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemmcrr, passed order dated

24.O2.2021 .

6. Relevant portion of crder, dated 24.O2.2O2I, rn CMA.No.148 of 2OI2 is as follou,s "Whatcver may be the position prior l"o t1e judgmcnt of Honble Sup;eme Court in Oriertal Iusurance Compaay v. Siby Gcorgc ((2012) 12 SCC 540), fina.lity rvas given in Siby George (1 supra) r,r,ith respcct to the issue that cornpensation amount lalls due and payable as on the date of accident. This rvas in line with the judgrnent of Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singtr Deo v. Srinivas Sa-bata t(1.976l, I SCC 289). 'zoor (r)alu,ts; 3 My lezrrned brother Justrce A. Rajasheke.- elaborately considered all the judgments cited t appellalts as well as respondents in C.M.A.No.ti' and by order dated 04.12.2015 had heltl appellant/ claimant is entitled to interest at 12'I from the date of accident till thc datc of realisatio though the amount cf compcnsaticn is duc on accident, the liability to pay interesL arises onl month from the date of accident. This is on accou c 4A(3) of the Workmen's Compcnsation Act, 1923. Reddy had g both the I of 2015, that the ter annum .. However, hc date of alter one . of Section With rcspect to thc contention of lcarn,: Counsel for insuralce company that thc insurar r may not be mulcted with liabilitv in cases rr,,herr: against the owner stood dis;nissed and the owne - been made a party respondcnt, thc said contentio ] be rejected for the reason that the issue had:l dealt in C.M.A.No.871 of 2015, dated 04.12.2015, to t.I'e judgment of Division Bench of this Cou r Chakra Rao v. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemrn ALD 453) . The judgment of Divisron Bench bein;; this Court, ald there being no reason for this Ccr with the rationale in Meka Chakra, the contr:rr learncd Standing Counsel lor insuratrce companS is Accordingly, the civil rnisccllancous ap1r, disposed of. It is madc clear that u,herever the c.r amount has been deposited in pursuance of th r Commissioner, the payment of .interest shall be re<:l one month after the date o{ accident till the date of costs. Miscellaneous applications, i[ any pending, stand closed. No costs." . Standing r company the appeal having not is liable to eady been 1'referring . in Meka r (2001 (1) :inding on rt to differ .on of the rejected. al stands rpensation orders of oned from eposit. No shal1 also \

7. The order, dated 24.02.2021, 1S passed 1r CMA.No.148 of 2014, considering the order of a Division Bench. 'his Court is not inclined to take a different view. The appell:r t is entitled to interest @72o/o per annum. Payment of interest i tall be reckoned S-!! from one month after the date of accident till the date of the 4 deposit.

8. With the above observations, civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stard closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER of Labour at Nizamabad 1 The commissioner for workmen's compensation-cum-Deputy commissioner 2. One CC to SRt. T V Katyan Singh, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri Naresh Byrapane-ni,.Advocate l'OpUCi 4. Two CD Copies NVB&am HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 JUDGMENT ri=::::1\. I -- ",cc,i ('.'' CMA.No.346 of 2014 Q O I t tirll il,,l L' : Urlri 1,J'-.r DISPOSING OF CMA v