CoramThe Honourable Mr v. L. Thangarajan2.United India Insurance Co.Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 3-8-2007CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARC.M.A.No.1899 of 2000andC.M.A.No.710 of 2003C.M.A.No.1899 of 2000H. Dawood...Appellant/ApplicantVs.1.L. Thangarajan2.United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,Third Party Claim Cell,38, Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 002....Respondents/ Opposite PartiesC.M.A.No.1899 of 2000 is preferred against the order dated14.9.1999 made in W.C.No.26 of 1999 by the Commissioner forWorkmen Compensation-I, (Dy Commissioner of Labour I) Chennai-6.For Appellant:Mr.A.ShanmugharajFor 1st Respondent:No appearanceFor 2nd Respondent:Mr.K.S.NarasimhanC.M.A.No.710 of 20031.V. Kannan2.Vannamayil...AppellantsVs.1.The Chairman,TNEB, Chennai - 2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Assistant Engineer,TNEB, O&M Ambattur,(South) CEDC/West,Chennai - 53.3. Balakrishnan & M.Lakshmi4.M.Ekappan...RespondentsC.M.A.No.710 of 2003 is preferred against the order dated10.5.2002 made in W.C.No.248 of 1999 on the file of theCommissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner forLabour-II) Chennai.For Appellant:Mr.K.V.AnanthakrishnanFor Respondents:No appearanceCOMMON JUDGMENTThese appeals are filed against the orders of the DeputyCommissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, in W.C.No.26 of 1999 on14.9.1999 and in W.C.No.248 of 1999 on 10.5.2002 respectively.2.The Claimants in the respective case filed the appealsonly in respect of denial of interest for the amount ofcompensation awarded. In C.M.A.No.1899 of 2000 (W.C.No.26 of1999), the authority passed an award of Rs.95,744/- and inC.M.A.No.710 of 2003 (W.C.No.248 of 1999) the award amount isRs.2,09,920/-.3.In both these appeals, the common substantial questionof law raised by the appellants/claimants is that the authorityfailed to award interest from the date of accident as against thestatutory provision contained in section 4A of the WorkmenCompensation Act, 1923.4.The learned counsel appearing for the respectiveappellants argued that the claim of the appellants having beenupheld and the compensation having been awarded, interest shouldhave been ordered from the date of the claim petition. Thelearned counsels also cited the following decisions in support oftheir contention: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a)1976-I LLJ 235 (Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Sriniwas Sabataand another)(b)AIR 1997 SC 3854 (Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others)(c)(1998) 9 SCC 134 (Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh)(d)Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2002 (4)CTC 469(The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Pondicherry v. KaliyaPillai and 2 others)5.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent inC.M.A.No.1899 of 2000 submitted that the appellants are notentitled to raise the issue of payment of interest from the dateof the claim petition as the matter in issue is already settled inthe decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2007) 2 SCC 349(National Insurance Co Ltd v. Mubasir Ahmed and another) and thesaid decision is binding on this Court.6.I have considered the rival submissions made by thelearned counsel appearing for the respective appellants as well asrespondents.7.The point in issue is whether the appellants areentitled to claim interest from the date of the claim petition oronly after expiry of 30 days from the date of determination ofcompensation amount.8.In (2007) 2 SCC 349 (National Insurance Co Ltd v.Mubasir Ahmed and another) the Apex Court considered similar issueand in paragraph 9 held thus,"9. Interest is payable under Section 4-A(3) if there is default in paying thecompensation due under this Act within onemonth from the date it fell due. The questionof liability under Section 4-A was dealt withby this Court in Maghar Singh v. JashwantSingh ((1998) 9 SCC 134). By amending Act 30of 1995, Section 4-A of the Act was amended,inter alia, fixing the minimum rate ofinterest to be simple interest @ 12%. In theinstant case, the accident took place afterthe amendment and, therefore, the rate of 12%as fixed by the High Court cannot be faulted.But the period as fixed by it is wrong. Thestarting point is on completion of one monthfrom the date on which it fell due. Obviouslyit cannot be the date of accident. Since no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ indication is there as to when it becomes due,it has to be taken to be the date ofadjudication of the claim. This appears to beso because Section 4-A(1) prescribes thatcompensation under Section 4 shall be paid assoon as it falls due. The compensation becomesdue on the basis of adjudication of the claimmade. The adjudication under Section 4 in somecases involves the assessment of loss ofearning capacity by a qualified medicalpractitioner. Unless adjudication is done,question of compensation becoming due does notarise. The position becomes clearer on areading of sub-section (2) of Section 4-A. Itprovides that provisional payment to theextent of admitted liability has to be madewhen employer does not accept the liabilityfor compensation to the extent claimed. Thecrucial expression is “falls due”.Significantly, legislature has not used theexpression “from the date of accident”. Unlessthere is an adjudication, the question of anamount falling due does not arise."(Emphasis supplied) In view of the above categorical pronouncement of the Apex Court,the contention raised by the appellants to award interest from thedate of claim petition cannot be sustained.9.In this respect, the following decisions of the SupremeCourt can be usefully referred to in the light of the submissionof the learned counsel for the appellants citing various decisionsreferred above.(a)In the decision reported in (2002) 2 SCC 420 (SuganthiSuresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan) in paragraph 9 it is held as follows:"9.It is impermissible for the HighCourt to overrule the decision of the ApexCourt on the ground that the Supreme Courtlaid down the legal position withoutconsidering any other point. It is not only amatter of discipline for the High Courts inIndia, it is the mandate of the Constitutionas provided in Article 141 that the lawdeclared by the Supreme Court shall be bindingon all courts within the territory of India.It was pointed out by this Court in Anil KumarNeotia v. Union of India ((1988) 2 SCC 587 = https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AIR 1988 SC 1353) that the High Court cannotquestion the correctness of the decision ofthe Supreme Court even though the point soughtbefore the High Court was not considered bythe Supreme Court."(b)In (2006) 6 SCC 522 (Rapti Commission Agency v. State ofU.P.) (para 7), the Supreme Court held that the judgments of theSupreme Court are bound to be followed under Article 141 of theConstitution of India.(c)In a recent decision reported in 2007 AIR SCW 2655(Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. Smt.VilasinibenRamachandran & Others) in paragraph 12 the Supreme Court heldthus,"12.It is well settled that thejudgments of this Court are binding on all theauthorities under Article 142 of theConstitution and it is not open to anyauthority to ignore a binding judgment of thisCourt on the ground that the full facts hadnot been placed before this Court and/or thejudgment of this Court in the earlierproceedings had only collaterally orincidentally decided the issues raised in theshowcause notices. Such an attempt is tobelittle the issues and the orders of thisCourt. We are pained to say that the thenDeputy Collector has scant respect for theorders passed by the Apex Court."10.In view of the settled position of law as held by theSupreme Court in the decision reported in (2007) 2 SCC 349 (citedsupra), the appellants are not entitled to get interest from thedate of claim petition and they are entitled to get interest onlyafter expiry of 30 days from the date of determination ofcompensation amount.There is no merit in the civil miscellaneous appeals and thesame are dismissed. No costs.vrSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation II,(Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II), Chennai.2. The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation I,(Deputy Commissioner of Labour I), Chennai.3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court,Madras.+ 1 cc to Mr. K. S. Narasimhan, Advocate, SR No.48715+ 1 cc to Mr. A. Shanmugaraj, Advocate, SR No.48488+ 1 cc to Mr. K. V. Anmantha Krishnan, Advocate SR No. 48605BS(CO)SR/29.8.2007 Judgment inC.M.A.No.1899 of 2000 & 710 of 2003