The High Court · 2025

SRI. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents /r v xet-vAN stNGH CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.285 OF 2014: The aplleal filed Under Section 30 Workmen Compensation Act, against the order dat'=d 19.11.2012 made in WC.No.457l2OO3 (NF) on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizanrabad. Between: VAGMARE YASHWANTH , HANMANTHU S/o. Jalba, Occ Labour, R./o. Goutha nnagar, Nizamabad. ApplicanVPetitioner I\ND 1 2 4l!-ry.]i.n"! (fvt-aio1, S/o. Waheed Khan,Occ Owner of Lorry bearing No.ABT- 1408, FUo.2-4-31, Baswataraknagar, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. - THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Rep., through its Divisional Ygqqq Divisional office oPP.z.p.office, Subhashnagir, Nizamerbad District. RESPON DE NTS/RESPON DENTS (Respondent No.1 is not a necessary party, as the r:ntire compensation amount is deposited by the Re;pondent No.2 before the tribunal below) Counsel for the Appellant : SRI T.V. KALYAAN SING Counsel for the Respondents : SRt A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY The Court de,livered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.59O OF 2O13 and CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.285 oF 2014 COMMON JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order dated 19:11 .2OL2 passed in W.C.No.457 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Nizamabad (for short 'the Commissioner'), the Insurance Company /appellant l'iled CMA.No.590 of 2013.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.11 .2012 passed in W.C.No.4 57 of 2OO3 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Deputy Commissioner of labour at Nizamabad (for short 'the Commissioner'), the applicant/appellant filed CMA.No.285 of 2014.

3. Since CMA.No.S9O of 20 l3 and CMA.No.285 of 2OI4 are arising out of the same order, they are being heard together.

4. For convenience, facts in CMA.No.59O of 2O13 are discussed. \ .. .tAK.,t Uno.No i9() 2013 &cna i,o.Jx5 )0lJ ) 5' Heard Mr. A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing Counsel for appellant/opposite party No.2 and Mr. T'V'Karlran singh, rearned counsel for respondents. 6' T,e applicant (Vagmare yashwanth in w.c.No.457 0f 2003) !'as working as a rabour on a lorry bearing ABT 14O8, under the employment of opposite part_y No. 1 (Aslam Khan)' when the l0rry laden u,ith sand was going from Velpoor to Nizamabad on 16.08.2002, at T:OO p.m., it reached the crossing after Adimamidipally village, the driver of the vehicre drove in rash and negrigent manner, hit two persons and then rorry turned turtre and felr in a ditch' Ttre applicant suffered fractures of outer end of right clavicle, multiple and grievous injuries on head and other parts of the body' cr.No. 124 0f 2002 was registered by Police in police Station, Makloor.

7. Apltlicant was shifted to Tirumala Hospital, Nizamabad, treated as inpatient, thereafter he was treated in various other hospitals (private). Appricant craims he is permane;etly disabred and unabre to discharge his duties, that opp'rsite party No.l terminated his services. Doctor +; / cnd. No. 590 20 I 3 &cma. N o. 285 JAK' J I 1 -20 3 issued a permanent partial disability certificate' for 600/o, claimant sought Rs.3,00,0 O0 I -. Commissioner, after considering exhibits Al to A7, examining witnesses AWl and AW2 (for applicant), RWl (for respondents) and the submissions, awarded a compensation of Rs.l,5O,77Ol- to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, failing which interest @ 12% per annum be paid. Award is dated 19tt' November, 2012. Cheque bearing No."006416" drawn on HDFC Bank, Nizamabad, is dated Ol.l2-2O12 fot an amount of Rs.1,5O,77O/- is deposited in the account of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.

8. Learned counsel for appellant (Opposite Party No.2 in W.C.) contended that Commissioner by order dated

19.11.2012 directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,5O,77Ol- within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, failing which, interest @L2% per annum is to be paid. l,earned counsel invited the attention of this Court to Sections 4 and a(A) of the Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923, (for short "the Actl) and submitted that the amount of \ \ ,IAK,,I cnru.No.590 2013 &cna.lio.285 2011 4 compensation has to be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy or order of adjr-rdicertion. The following is the relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner dated 19.11 .2012: "ln the result, I hereby order the opposite parties 1 and 2 to deposit iointly and s:verally compensation of Rs.1,49,970/- together with stamp fee of Rs.300/- and the advocate fee of Rs.5O0/-, total amount to (Rupees One Lakh Fifty F.s. 1,50,770 /- thousand seven hundred and seventy only) u,ithin (30) davs by means of demarrd draft drawn on any nationalized bank payable in ftrvour of the Commissioner for Workmen,s C)ompensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, from the date of receipt of this order failing which it carries interest @ 12% per annum." amount falls due from the date of accident, if it is not paid within ()ne month, interest has to be paid from one month of the a.ccident date till the date of deposit. In other words, delay irr deposit/payment of compensation beyond a period of one month from the date of accident/incident attracts interest: at the rate as decided by the commissioner. The purporl. of the Act is that amount is tiable to be paid immediately after the accident/incident. i :. II I I cno. No. 590 - JAK, J 20 I 3 &cna. No. 285 _20 I 4 5

10. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in a few matters, this Court passed orders directing interest to be paid, if amount of compensation is paid one month after the date of accident. Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Compang Limited a, Sibg Georgel, held as follows: "9. Now, coming back to the question when does the payment of compensation fall due and what would be the point for the commencement of interest, it may be noted that neither the decision in Mubasir Ahmed IQOOT) 2 SCC 349 : l2OO7) I SCC (L&S) 6431 nor the one in Mohd. Nasir t(2009) 6 SCC 28o : (2ooel 2 SCC (Civl 877 : (2OO9) 2 SCC (Cri) 9871 can be said to provide any valid guidelines because both the decisions were rendered in ignorance of earlier larger Bench decisions of this Court by which the issue was concluded. As early as in 1975 a four-Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v- Snniucrs Sabata l!976l I SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab lC 2221 directly answered the question. In paras 7 and 8 of the decision it was held and observed as follows: (sriniuas Sabata case [(19761 1 SCC 289 : L976 SCC (L&Sl 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab IC 2221 , SCC pp. 291-92l, " 7. Section 3 of the Act deals with the employer's liabiliry for compensation. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the employer shall be liable to PaY compensation if 'personal injury is ' 1zotz112 scc 540 *4.1 \ \ .IAK,,I <na.l\'o:)i1 )(tl3 &Lno.l,lo 285 2t)lr 6 caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment'. It was not the case of the employer that the right to compensation was taken away under sub-section (5) of Section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil court for damages, in respect of the injury, against the employer or any other person. Ihe employer therefore became liable to pag the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident uhich admittedly arose out of and in the course of the employment. lt is therefore futile to contend that the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioner's order dated 6-5- 1969 under Section 19. What the section provides is that if any question arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation or as to the amount or duration of the compensation it shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. There ts- therefore nothing to justify the argument that the employer's liabilitg to paA compensation under Section S, in respect of tlrc injury, was suspended until afier the settlement contemplated by Section 19. The appellant was thus liable to pag compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the appellant, and tlere is no justification for th.e argument to the contrary. B. It was the duty of the appellant, under Section 4-A(1) of the Act, to i i i ! g II I cna.No.590 -201 3 &cna.No.285 JAK, J I -201 7 pay the compensation at the rate provided by Section 4 as soon as the personal injury was caused to the respondent. He failed to do so. What is worse, he did not even make a provisional payment under sub-section (2) of Section 4 for, as has been stated, he went to the extent of taking the false pleas that the respondent was a casual contractor and that the accident occurred solely because of his negligence. Then there is the further fact that he paid no heed to respondent's Personal approach for obtaining the compensation. It will be recalled that the respondent was driven to the necessity of making an application to the Commissioner for settling the claim, and even there the appellant raised a frivolous objection as to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and Prevailed on file a respondent to memorandum of agreement settling the claim for a sum which was so grossly inadequate that it was rejected by the Commissioner. In these facts and circumstances, we have no doubt that Commissioner was fully justified in making an order for the PaYment of interest and the penaltY." (emphasis supplied) 1O. The matter once again came up.before this Court when by amendments introduced in the Act by Act 30 of 1995 the amount of compensation and the rate of interest were increased with effect from 15-9-1995. The question arose whether the increased amount of iompensation and the rate of \ \ .1.1K..1 cma.No.59t) 2013 &cna.lio )85 2l)lJ 8 interest would apply also to cases in which the accident took place before 15-9-1995. A tirree-Judge Bench of this Court in Kerala S:EB v. Valsala K. UI999) 8 SCC 254 : 2OOO SCC (L&S) so : AIR tgsg SC 3so2l , answered the question in the ,r.g"tiu" holding, on the authority of pratap [Varain S:ingh Deo [(1976) 1 SCC 289 : 19T6 SCC (r-&S) 52 : AIR 19T6 SC 222 : t9Z6 Lab rC 2221 , that the payment of compensation fell due on the date of the accident. In paras 1, 2 and 3 of the decision this Court observed as fr>llows: (Valsala K. case t(1999) g SCC 254: SCC (L&S) s0 : ArR tgss SC 3so2l , ?qo-O S,CC pp. 254-55) " 7. The neat question involved in the se special leave petitions is: whether the amendment of Sections 4 and 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act 30 of 1995 with effect from 15-9-199S, enhancing the amount of compensation and rate of interest, would be attracted to cases where the claims in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident caused during the course of employment, took place prior to 15-9- 1995.

2. Various High Courts in the country, while dealing with the claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act have uniformly taken the view that the relevant date for determining the rights and tiabilities of the parties is the date of the accident.

3. A four-Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Sriniuas Sabata l(t976l 1 SCC 299 JAK.,) cild.,\'o. 590 2() I 3 &cna.No. 285 20 I J 9 : 1976 SCC (L&Sl 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab IC 2221 , sPeaking through Shinghal, J. has held that an employer becomes liable to PaY compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim." I 1. The Court then referred to a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in United India lnsurance Co. Ltd.v. Alaui [(1998) I KLT 9511 , and aPProved it insofar as it followed the decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo [(1976) 1 SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab IC 2221 -

12. The decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo ItL976l 1 SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab IC 2221 was bY a four-Judge Bench and in Valsala I(. [(1999) 8 SCC 254 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 50 : AIR 1999 SC 35021 by a three-Judge Bench of this Court. Both the decisions were, thus, fully binding on the Court in Mubasir Ahmed l(2OO7l 2 SCC 349 : (2OO7l 1 SCC (L&S) 6431 and Mohd.. lVasir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civl 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) e87l , each of which was heard by two Judges. But the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo [(1976) 1 SCC 289 : t976 SCC (L&Sl 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab IC 2221 and Valsala K. t(1999) 'p SCC 254 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 50 : AIR 1999 SC 35021 were not brought to the notice of the Court in the two later decisions in Mubasir Ahmed lQOOTl 2 SCC 349 : (2oO7l 1 SCC (L&S) 6431 and \ .lAK..t Lmo.No. 59l) 201 J &cnu.No.)tt5 20 t r l0 tutohd. .l{asir [(2009) 6 SCC 28O : (2OO9l 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2ooel2 SCC (Cri) e87l .

13. In the light of the decisions in pratap I\arain Singh Deo [(t976l I SCC 289 : tg76 SCC (L&Sl 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : L9T6 Lab U) 2221 and Valsala K. U1999) 8 SCC 254 : 2OOO SCC (L&S) 50 : AIR 1999 SC 35021 , ir is; not open to contend that the payment of cf,mpensation would fall due only after the Commissioner's order or with reference to the clate on which the claim application is nradc. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed. [(2oo7) 2 SCC 349 : (2oo7) 1 SCC (L&S) 643] and Mohd. Nasir [(2009) 6 SCC 28O : (2OO9) 2 SCC (Civl 877 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) gBTl insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo [tL976l I SCC 289 19T6 SCC (L&S) 52: ArR 1976 SC 222 : T976 Lab IC 2221 and Valsala I{. Ut999) 8 SCC 254 : 2ooo SCC (L&S) 50 : /,lR 1999 SC 3502] do not express the correct view and do not make binding prreccdents." 1'1. h-' view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court and tho law laid down and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the commissioner, directing to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the c'rder, failing which, an interest @ r2o/o per annum is to be 1raid, apparently is not in tune with the law laid down. The insurance company is riable to pay interest @ l2%o pe:r annum from 15.09.2002 i.e., one month from the JAK, J cno.No. 590 _20. I 3 &cno. No. 28 5 --20 I 4 date of accident till the date of deposit i.e., L8.L2.2012. The interest amount due to the applicant shall be paid within a period of three (O3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the scheme of the Act in Golla RaJanna qnd Others a. Diuisional Manager and AnotheP, held as follows: " 10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare Iegislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings cin percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act." ) \

13. The same view/principle is reiterated by the Hon'lcle Apex Court in trt,tlmo:ti Dhrqmdev Yadaa and o;rr:otlrrer a. t l Neut India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law, much less a substantial one, arises for consideration. ' 1zon1r scc 45 '2023 SCC Online SC 1l05 I JAK,.I cma.No.590 .)0 i -l &cma.No.285 .201t t2

14. This Court has only considered the aspect of interest in deta l, as it is a statutory obligation to pay interest from one month from the date of accident tili the date of deposit, as held by Apex Court.

15. \ Iith the above directions, CMA.No.590 of 2Ol3 is dispost:d of. In view of disposal of CMA.No.590 of 2013, CMA.No.2BS of 2Ol4 stands allowed. No order as to costs. I\Iiscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand r:losed Sd/. T. KRISHNA KUMAR JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The oommissionerfor Employees' compensation & Deputy commissioner of Labolr, Nizamabad I

2. one tlc to sRt. A RAMAKRTSHNA REDDy Advocate topucl 3. One rlC to SRt. T V KALYAN STNGH Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two rlD Copies 'lL HIGH C()URT DATED i0110712025 JUDGMIENT CMA.No.590 OF 2013 & CMA.Nrc.285 OF 2014 i l"ir: (j;. () * 3 il .l iril 1t]26 * DISPOSING OF THE CMA.No.590 OF 2013 ALLO\\'ING THE CMA.No.285 OF 2014 6 ) 6 Ir