High Court · 2011

Judgment

1. • ‘:‘, 1iT,! (1 .‘lc,::. c fl’ I L’s ‘Cc “fi’ T ‘. •t •tl’ : ‘ •• C ‘ i’rt% Jf,’ b .1141 I.. Lw ( I’ .Jf ..‘j (‘‘ ,, ..., V •. •. S.. .. I. I . I I’ I • . S. tf .f, \f ,1; . , .. S I , S .1 I ,. ..• 1F ‘0) ‘I “is C ‘Pot .iI V ‘org Ic (TT . !tiirhi T %4Tfl 4ifl i-’1!i %itc I. •ir;is’iarir Z*i s’Uq J,’ Ji17(di(J ‘ret ‘Ut S itT #1 tf”iilcQ Jf1 jA’r . ..r_: (J LyE c ‘rot’ c j cc! inC t( p ‘Dli 3Cr tcj C (ISO )lc’ ‘)ppontniiiy ;o ilic esnplo;jer lv siuna’ “OLt%C lJhILU ii SllOUl(J fl’)I bt ‘LSC

2. p a] .isc I l’ 1 1’ that where tin- empli . er dors not as c .. pt the IiahiIii Ii a em n’at e e ill c ‘)eur r1 ‘a ‘ii 01 C a’ (‘(1)1% ‘3’ :ieI’Csi’’r 1i ,IIPL u:tti lflt 1u ,IflPII’%iUnt r .ic In’. a. ‘ii It )tk 1 cn1c ‘ii’-, wE 1st -it q’c. ‘itr I r-,:’1 ‘ ‘bit .c. c!. s-;’.e . .‘iii “ivc . 0 C U t I a ‘( p .1 I! a, ( •;.; . t. % I., Ji e’kI :)‘‘-1’ !‘‘ t .1. !- “ t 3 I a I 4 VT ‘..% , t•I . I. 8 MFA 22602/2009 4A which is substituted by Act 30 of 1995 with effect from

15.09.1995 states that where any employer is in default paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date It fell due, he will be liable for payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum and also for penalty if there is no Justification for the delay. Further, as per sub-clause 3A of Section 4A the interest and the penalty payable under sub section (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependent. as the case may be. This provision (sub-section 3A) is substituted by Act 46 of 2000 w.e.f. 08.12.2000. PrIor to this amendment the penalty was required to be credited to the State Government and the interest alone was payable to the claimant along with the compensation amount. Therefore, what now follows Is If the employer delays payment of compensation to the workman or to the dependents of the deceased workman, he is liable to pay interest at 12% or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank. addition, the employer shall have to pay a sum not exceeding 50% as penalty. in case. Is found that there was no justification for the delay in making the payment. It Is thus clear from the above that the Commissioner has to find out whether ihe employer has committed default In paving the ‘L. V ‘N) ‘ Pa’, fli( iiIt IN d cit lid ‘ Ii ‘lit rolial ritt’qi iu’’l ‘Ia’n’ ilia’ ‘i’ll .‘t’t ‘aiI ‘hir- sj t ‘ 1 1% 1 ‘ It .li 11 ‘Kr rediu’d an ihi fln.v:%!clnc ‘1 -.ah e”t”l 3 ard ‘3—’ ib ‘ — I It I part In paing a drpcnium. the amc.i itit Based on such litidine. I e i V a d 1 i 1 -s Inteint aiiii peti.tltr Iii the Fact% .f the inMatil • a’e tin Ii ft dl c osttla o °n aT iIc’-.pnt iIflfl uenla ni Lu liabIIIl3 c’i the rlr’n1 of ;ht %anle WI InOdt%Ir lit 1’ o v’I it Th ci ‘al I’) tEl ‘lilt id it ti. -Lii! 11111 . td fl-.t liii ‘hi’ c,f) •rs date. ‘1tL 1it111 t,t 11’ ‘t• • ii Ft ‘ ‘ hhgvd ‘ ;•‘a C i1 LIt) %‘ .3 u IM (I ii1 e I€’ )f e1 )“ fl’s (g’.’.ijflt ( .r • ,it •“ i i t ‘i. l’ .. .j .. s •: Sn ‘‘.. -J- •, 1t1 .g • U 1 Ii t . L’t .1 ‘ .. I’. £ tub Ft up i*jrlsr ...

3.. 5 f a ‘PRAIIPN%fttflSflGHDLOfl sR W Mis ND INC )Ifl 1 3’ St 28 I 10 MFA 22602/2009 with the expression ‘falls due’ found In Section 4A(l) of the Act has held In paragraphs 6 to 8 as under: “6. It has next been argued that the Commissioner committed a serious error of law in imposing a penalty on the appellant under section 4A131 qf the Act as the compensation had not fallen due until It was settled’ by the Commissioner under section 19 by his Impugned order dated May 6, 1969. There Is however no force In this argument.

7. SectIon 3 of the Act deals with the employers liability for compensation. Sub-section (1) of that section provides the employer shall be liable to pay compensation If “personal irury Is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and In the course qf his employment. IL 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 qf the Injury, against the employer or any other person. The employer therctöre became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the vurse qf the employment. It is therçfore futile to contend the compensation did not jail due until after the Commissioner’s order dated May 6, 1969 under sectIon 19. What the section provIdes is that (f any question arises In anti proceeding wider the Act as to the liability qf any (4 11 MFA 22602/2009 ire xi person to pay co’7!pensculon or as to the amøunr or ill f agrcemen. be set lEd by the C’nmrnLcs trier. TLere s theretnie nothIng to jusr,f’, nipcts x a stall f t Se the argument £.‘at wOe c14 npt’ wbU r c respect qt the 1zun,. was suspended wall qfter the ten cor°nq,latedby ‘eLk ii) The up ‘Uantw s ciforesc d personal Injury was caused to the appellant and there Is ‘itt uis zablc to pay c nnp nsa ion as s rat as itt zJsfl ‘rt agiTktt)h ntrry

8. It was the duty of the appellant under section ij it’. provided by section 4 as stat as the personal Injury was caused to the resiondnt. He failed to dos What $ ftc. td )tvnrsktap yb wliaywntinc sub sectIon (21 qf section 4 br. as has been stated. he went Ix (eta at sri a as a casual cottaccor and that the accident ocrurred solely because f Ins ntqltg.nee Then titer’ is the Jurthcr f czpprnaeii t.’r obtaining the rnrnpensvztbun It will be recalled yd Pd t ann por ro ‘nvadrl thc’c ‘a J k at appltca.u-’n a 1k Co nrpsstonr to’ setting the laIr z and even there 1w .qipellw.r raised afnvoluus objrunn a ‘0 II (C C) .1 1 1 U. ‘ii (U p de it cjinride’:r I’k i L C n ri or 14

1. Cl ret (g4 ) s I ‘4 ciqrn rnrti scttluaj r. s tcslij c%( ‘Cr I r ‘c ic ‘in 12 MFA 22602/2009 circumstances, we have no doubt that the Commissioner was JizLZy just(fled in making an order jbr the payment of Interest and the penalty.”

14. What Is worse In the present case is it is a case of death. Therefore, the date when the liability to pay the amount arose for the employer was known to everyone, more so to the employer who had not even chosen to deny his liability. Therefore, the employer or for that matter the Insurance Company cannot be heard to say that the amount did not fall due until after the award came to be passed by the Commissioner. The judgment of the Apex Court referred to above completely answers the point raised in the present case. The amendment brought about to Section 4A by Act 30 of 1995 and by Act 46 of 2000 with effect from 15.09.1995 and

08.12.2000, respectIvely, have further fortified the legal position regarding the understanding of the expression ‘tails due’ as explained and laid down by the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Slngh Deo’s case referred above. At any rate, the said amendments do not support the contention of the Insurance Company that interest Is payable only from the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of award. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS MPi\ 2.2602/2009 MUBASIR ANMUD & ANR. AIR 2007 SC 1208 noes not reter 10 t.he ju.dgment of t.he larger bene.h of t.he Supreme Court in t.he ease of PRATAP NARAIN SINGH DEO VS. SRINIVAS SABATA AND ANOTHE (1976) 1 8CC 289. The judgment af the larger Bench of the Apex Conic. thouh delivered earlier to the iud&rneut in Mubasir Ahmed’s ease bind.s this Court as the same is not relierred to In Mubasir Ahmerfs ease Moreover, the diav of the employer to par’ the compensation to the workman as soon as the pe’isonal iniurv was. caused to the \vorlcnlarI is finnlv laid dorm in the said ease by referring t,o the previsions contained under Sections 5. 4 and CA 0 the Act. 5 L 0 0 O of 30 days from the date of accident, The .snbstantlal questions 1 L t\t I 1 6. res tlt •ihr•co•r reasons, a iou ‘ jL Li tin ran s c th neu astd a Cs 3, a0OL (:tI mouth, the S0fl)I w’11 eonie to Rs,3,S 7,397.50. The eiaimants are e nt,it.ied .ihr 9 t.ere st at t 3Q9 on. this amount xvi th e fOre 1 hc’ extra at DI) i.i a the diii i’ 01 [lx eidt.:nt, 2 C I I