High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI ctv lL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 589 OF 2013 Appeal Under Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act against the order dated 19-11-2012 made in WC.No.458 of 2003(NF) on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labou r at Nizambad. Between: The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep through its Divisional Manager, Divisional office Opp Z.P.Office,Subhashnagar, Nizamabad. ...APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY No. 2 AND

1. Nookala Sudhakar S/o Sayanna, Aged about: 22 years, Occ: Labour, R/o Gouthamnagar, Nizamabad. ...RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

2. Aslam Khan S/o Waheed Khan, Aged about Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing No. ABT-1408, Rlo 2-4-31, Baswataraknagar, Bodhan, Nizamabad Dt. ...RESPONOENT/OPP. PARW No. 1 Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri T. V' Kalyan Singh The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT LJ /'/ ,r/' THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUM,AR JUKANTI CI-L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.589 of 2Ol3 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by appellant/ Insurarrce Companl, aggrieved by the order dat, rd 19.11.2012 pzrsscd in W.C.No.458 of 2003 on the file of thr: Commissioncr for Emplor,ces Compensation,cum Deputv Cc,r rmissioner of Labour at Nizar:-rabad (for short 'the Commissione r')

2. Heard Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, lear red Standing Counsel for appellant/ Opposite Party No.2 and l{r. T. V.Kalyan Singh, learr-red cor-rnsel lor respondents.

3. The appiicar-rt (Nookala Sucihakar in W.C.I'1,r.458 ol 2003) wirs \r,orking as a labour on a lorry bearing AEi'' 1408, ur-rdcr thc cmplol,ment of oppositc part,y No. I (Aslam Kh:rn). When the Iorry laden with sand u'as going from Velpoor tc \izamabad on

16.O8.2OO2, at 7:00 p.m., it reached the r rrossing after AdimamidipzLlllg village, the driver of the vehick: drove in rash and negligcnt manner, hit two persons and thr:rr lorrr turned 2 JAK ] cm3 549 2013 turtle and fell in a ditch. The applicant suffered fractures of both the hands and legs, multiple and grievous injuries on head and other parts of the body. Cr.No.1.24 of 2002 was registered by Police in Poiice Station, Makloor.

4. Applicalt was shifted to Tirumala Hospital, Nizamabad, treated as inpatient, thereafter he was treated in various other hospitals (private). Applicant claims he is permanently disabled and unable to discharge his duties, that opposite party No. 1 terminated his services. Doctor issued a permanent partial disability certificate for 7Oo/o, claimant sought Rs.3,O0,00O/-. Commissioner, after considering exhibits A1 to A7, examining witnesses AW1 and AW2 (for applicant), RW1 (for respondents) the submissions, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,87,389/- to be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of order, failing which interest @ 12% per annum be paid. Award is dated 19th November, 2OI2. Cheque bearing No."006414" drawn on HDFC Bank, Nizamabad, is dated O1.12.2012 for an amount of Rs. 1,87,389/- is deposited in the l l I I I l i i i i I I l ! ! I I I i I I A 3 ]AK J cma 589 2013 account of Commissioner for Workmen's Co:r.pensia,tion of Deputy Comrnissioner of Labour, Nizamabad.

5. Learnecl counsel for appellant (Opposite i 'arty No.2 in W.C.) contended that Commissioner by order da,r d 19.ll.2O12 directed to pa1'' an amount of Rs.1,87,389/- r'rthin 30 days from the date of receipt of order, failing which, .r terest @ l2To per annum is to be paid. Learned counsel invited the etttention of this Court to Sections 4 and 4(A) of th: Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923, (for short "the Act") a nd submitted that the amount of compensation has to be deposited within a period of one month from the d ate of receipt o1' a copy of order of adjudication. The follou,ing is the relevant 1,ortiol1 of the order of the Commissioner dated 19.11.2O72: "ln the result, I hereby order the opposite partr(s I and 2 to dcposit lointly and severally compensatio r of Rs.1,86,516/ togcther with stamp fee of Rs.lii 3/ and the advocate fce of Rs.500/-, tota,l a.rnou 1 to Rs.1,87,389/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Sie r.en thousand Three hundred and eighty nine only) rri hin (3O) days by meals of demand draft drawn or any nation:Llized bank payable in flavour of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation rnd Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, frorn thc 4 cma 589 2011 date of receipt of this order failing which it carries interest @ 12orc per arnum."

6. It is evident from the Act that the cornpensation arnount falls due from the date of accident, if it is not paid within one month, interest has to be paid from one month of the accident date till the date of deposit. In other w,ords, delay in deposit/ payment of compensation beyond a period of one month from the d ate of accident attracts interest at the rate as decided by the Commissioner. The purport of the Act is that amount is liable to be paid immediately after the accident.

7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in a feu, 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 Lirnited a. Sibg Georget, held as follows: "9. Now, coming back to the question when does the payment of compensation fa,ll due alrd what would be the point for the commencement of interest, it may be noted that neiLher the decision in Mubasir Ahmed l{2oo7l 2 SCC 349 : (2OO7) I SCC (L&S) 6431 nor the '1zorz; rz scc s+o I I i I I 1 I I I /6 5 JAK ] cma_589 2013 orre in Mohd. I{asir [(2009) 6 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 s CC (Ci\,) 877: (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 9871 can be sair to provide any valid gurdelines because both I'he decisions rverc rendered ir-r ignorance of earller la ger Bench decrsions of lhis Court by which the issutr ",'as concludccl- As carly as in 1975 a four-Judge Benc I of this CourL in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srin uos Sabata l(197 6) I SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab lC 2221directly answered thc question. In paras 7 ald 8 of the decision it r,l'as rreld and observed as follows: (Snniuas Sabcta case l(l('76) I SCC 28'r : 1976 SCC (L&Sl 52 : AIR l97o SC 2 12 : 1976 l,ab IC 222) , SCC pp. 291 92) "7. Section 3 of the Act deals with the cmployer s liability for compensation. Sub sr:ctron (1) of that section provrdes that the liable to PaY employer shal1 be compensation if 'personal injury is caused to a workmal by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment'. It was not the case of the employer that the right tc compcnsation was taken away under sub scction (5) of Section 3 because of the institution ol a suit in a civil court fol damages, in respect of the injury, against thc employer or any other person. 'fhe' emploger there-fore became liable to paq tlLC com1sensation as soon as the ctforesaic' personal injury wos caused to the tuorkmar. by the acctdent tahich admittedly arose otL o-f and in the course of the emptogment. It i: tlrcrefore futile to contend that thc compensotion did not falt due until after tfu: Commissioner's order dated 6-5 1969 unde,' Section 19. What the section provides is, llral if aly question arises in an] proceeding under the Act as to the liabilitl' of any person to pay compensation or as L(' 5 ]AK ] cma 589 2013 the amount or duration of compensation it shall, in default of agreement, bc settled by the Commissioner. TLLere is therefore nothing to justifg tLrc argument that the employer's liabilitg to pag compensatton under Section 3, in respect of the injury, utas suspended untll after the settlement contemplated lry Section 19. The appellant LUas thus liable to paA compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal. [njury was caused to the appellant, and there is n.o justifi.cation for the argument to the contrarLl.

8. [t was the duty of the appellant, under Section 4 A(1) oi the Act, to pay the compensation al lhe rate provided by Section 4 as soon as the personal injury was caused to thc respondent. He failed to do so. What is rvorse, he did not even make a provisional pa).rnent under sub-section (2) of Section 4 for, as has been stated, he went to the extcnt of taking thc false pleas that the respondent was a casual contractor alrd that the accident occurred solely because of his negligence- Then there is thc further lact that he paid no heed to the respondent's personal approach for obtaining the compcnsation. It will bc reca.lled 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 jurisdictron of the Comrnissioner and prevailed on the respondent to hle a memoraldum of agreement settling ttre claim for a sum which was so grossly inadequale thal it was rejected by the Comrnissioner. In these 1 crna 589 2013 facts and circumstances, we have no doubt that the Commissioner was fully justified in making a;r order for the payment of interest and the pena1ty." (emphasis suppticci)

10. The matter once again came up bcfore this (l rurt when by arnendments introduced in the Act b1'Ac 30 of 1995 the amount of compensation and the rirl I of interest t,ere increased n'ith elfect lrom 15 9 ( 95 The question arosc whelher thc increased amoLrt of compensation al-Id the rate of intercst rvould rpplt' also to cases in rvhich the accident took placc t,c fore 15-9-1995. A three-Judge Bench of this Cour ir KeraLa SDB v. Valsala K. I\1999) 8 SCC 254 : 2IOO SCC (l,&,S) 5O:AIR 1999 SC 35021 , answerc,l the question ln the negative holding, on the authorit Pratap NcLrain Singh Deo l\197 6) I SCC 289 ; 1176 SCC (L&S) 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1,97 6 Lab lC'.t'.21 , that the payment of compensation fell due on thr late of the accident. In paras 1, 2 and 3 of the decisioD this Court observed as follows: (Valsala K. case [(199 )) 8 SCC 254:2000 SCC (L&S) 50:AIR 1999 SC 3:t( 2l , SCC p1:. 254-55) " " l. 'l'he neat question involved in thesc special leave petitions is: whether the amer-rdment of Sections 4 and 4-A of the \.\/orkmen's Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act 30 of 1995 urth effect from 15 9 1995, enhancing the amount ol compensation and rate of inLerest, would bc attracted to cases where the claims in respect of deattr or permanent disablement resulting from an accident caused durinp the course of emp1o1.rnent, took place prior to 15 9- 1995. 8 ]AK ] cma 589 2013

2. Various High Courts in the country, while dealing with the clarm for compcnsation undcr thc Workmen s Compensation Act herve uniformly takcn the view that thc rele!,ant datc for detcrmining the righrs and li..rbilitics o[ rhc pautics is thc date of the accidcn t.

3. A four Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Naraln Singh Deo y. Siniuas Sabata [(1976) I SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (t&,S) 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab IC 222) speaking through Shinghal, J. has held that ar employer bccomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the pcrsonal injury rs caused to thc rvorkmcn by the accident which arose out of and in the course of cmploJ,rncnt. Thus, the relevant date lor determinzrtior.r of the rate of compensation is thc datc of the accident arld not the datc of adjudication of the claim." I l. The Court then re[errcd to a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court n united India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alaui J(1998) 1 KLT 951] , and approved it insofar as it followed the decision in Pratop Narain Singh Deo l(1976) I SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab IC 2221 .

12. The decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo [(197 6) L SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab IC 2221 was by a four-Judge Bench and in Valsala K. J(1999) 8 SCC 254 : 2OOO SCC (L&S) SO : AIR 1999 SC 35021 by a threc-Judge Bcnch of this Court. Both the decisions were, thus, fully binding on the Court in Mubasir Ahmed ll2OOTl 2 SCC 349 : (2Oo7) I SCC (L&S) 6431 and Mohd. Nasir II2OO9) 6 I , i ! i :a+#H+Elgr . ,',:;"-ii; :; -/ '. ../ ..i.nr' ' ,r*i'; 9 cma S89 2013 SCC 280 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCtl 987] , each of which was heard by two Judges. i3.r earlier decisions rn Pratap Narain Singh Deo [(llt', SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 52 : AIR 1976 SC I t976 Lab lC 222) and Valsalct K. [(1999) 8 SCC . 2OOO SCC (L&S) 50 : AIR 1999 SC 35O21 rvirt brought 10 the notice ol thc Court jn thc tu( decisions in Mubasir Ahmed [(2007\ 2 SCC ] l2oo7J I SCC (L&S) 6431 and Mohd. Nasir l('.!t t SCC 280: (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 877 : (2009) 2 SCI(I e87l . (Cri) tr) I ,,2 . r4: , rt( r 19: ' r) (,1 lCrl) I3. In tllr' Light of the decisions tn Pratap Naraitt i Deo l(197 5) I SCC 289 : 1976 SCC (L&S) s'r 1976 SC 222 : 1976 Lab lC 2221 and Talsrrl [(1999) 8 SCC 254 : 2O00 SCC (L&S) 50 : AIR 1i.) ] 35O21 , iL is not open to contcnd that the palrn-' compensation would fall due only aftt r Commtssioner s order or with referencc to thc r]rrt r.vhich thc claim application is made. The decisior Mubasir .Ahmed |2OO7 ) 2 SCC 3.+9 : l2OO7) 1 (L&S) 5431 and Mohd.,vasir [(2OO9) 6 SCC 280 . 1-] 2 SCC (Civ) a77 : (2OO9) 2 SCC (Cri) 9871 inso r they took a contrary view to the earlier decisr r Pratapt l1'evctin Singh Deo [(i976) I SCC 289 SCC (l-&S) 52 : AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 L.a.b t( and Valsala l(. [(1999) 8 SCC 254 : 2OOO SCt- 1 5O : AIR 1999 SC 3502] do not express thc c ) r.iew and do not make binding precedents." \I II i h'. r5(, rL ()1 or-) s i r.r JCC Olr) I as :, ir.t . )71; ) )')1 ,,{r-q) Icct B. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the law laid doll,n and in the facts and circumstanc's of the case, the order of the Commissioner, directing to dep I ;it thc amount within 30 cla1's from the date of receipt of t 1- r orde r, failing 10 JAK J .ma 589 2013 which, an interest @ 12% per annum is to be paid, appa_rently is not in tune with the law laid down. The insurance company is liable to pay interest @ 1,2% per annum from 15.09.2O02 i.e., one month from the date of accident till the date of deposit i.e.,

18.12.2012. The interest amount due to the applicant shall be paid within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with lau,.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing rvith the scheme of the Act in Gotla Rajanna and Others a. Diuisional Manager and Anothera, held as follows: "10. Under the scheme of the Act, thc Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authoritl, on facts. The Pal-liament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appcal only to substantial questions of [aw, bcing a rvelfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High CourL has mtssed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to rc-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the compctence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act."

10. The same view/principle is reiterated by the Honble Apex Court in Fuhnati Dhramdea Yadau and. another u. Neu, '1zorz1 r scc +s ,i I i I i i I i ! I I I i&: 11 ]AK ] cma 589 2013 India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anothers. In he facts and circumstancr:s of the case, no question of larv, mucl-r less a substantial one, arises for consideration. i 1. This Court has only considered the aspect of interest in detail, as it is a statutory obligation to pay inte 'est from one month from the date of accident till the date of c e posit. as held by Apex Court

12. With the above directions, Civil Misceiian:,rus Appeal is disposed of. No costs Miscellaleous applications pending, if ar:1 , s1-ra1l stand closed 'zozi SCc Online sc 1705 SI:/. R.KARTHIKEYAN JOINT REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER T o, 'l . The commissioner for Emproyees compensation-cum .[,eputy commissioner of Labour at Nizambad. lwiih records, if iny)

2. One CC to Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OpU()l 3. One CC to Sri T. V. Kalyan Singh, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 0110712025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.589 of 2013 1t ti'"r ifrm \'.. :'/ I \, DISPOSING OF CMA t- I I I I I I