Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK F.A.O. No.488 of 2009 From judgment dated 28.04.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in W.C. Case No.293-D/2003. ----------------- Benudhar Jena, Son of Bhramarbar Jena, Village: Haripur (Radhanathpur), PO : Gadadharprasad, PS/Dist : Nayagarh -Versus- Smt. Sujata Sahoo, W/o. Krishna Ch. Sahoo, AT: Main Road, PO: Itamati, PS/Dist: Nayagarh and another … Appellant … Respondents. For Appellant For Respondents : : M/s. Dr.T.C.Mohanty, J.Mohanty, R.R.Nayak, A.A.Khan, R.P.Bhagat & C.R. Dhal M/s. N.C.Misra, & S.K.Behera-3 (For R-2) -------------- P R E S E N T :
Legal Reasoning
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. MAHAPATRA Date of Judgment: 15.05.2013 B.N.Mahapatra, J. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 28.04.2009 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-Deputy Labour Commissioner, Cuttack (for short, “Commissioner”) in W.C. Case No.293-D/2003. 2. Appellant’s case before the Commissioner was that on 22.09.2003 at about 5.30 AM while the appellant was discharging his duties as a Helper in a Truck bearing Registration No.OR-02-Q-8597 2 on N.H.5 near Bandal Dhaba another Truck being driven in a rash and negligent manner came in very high speed and dashed the Truck in which the appellant was working. As a result of such accident, the appellant-workman sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for treatment. The appellant had fracture of his left leg and left hand and multiple injuries all over his body. Despite the treatment he was not cured and he lost his earning capacity to the extent of hundred percent. Thereafter, the appellant filed W.C. Case No.293-D/2003 before the Commissioner against the respondents for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.6.00 lakhs on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The learned Commissioner after hearing both parties directed opposite party No.2-National Insurance Company Ltd. to deposit a sum of Rs.2,20,158/- within 30 days of receipt of the order failing which opposite party No.2 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim case till the date of deposit in the Court of the Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Commissioner, the present F.A.O. has been filed by the appellant-workman. 3. Though the appellant challenged the impugned judgment of the Commissioner seeking two reliefs, i.e., (i) for enhancement of compensation and (ii) for payment of interest from the date of accident, Dr.T.C.Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant did not want to press the first relief and confined his argument to the second relief only. Dr.Mohanty vehemently argued 3 that the learned Commissioner erred in not awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of its realization as provided in the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It was submitted that the Commissioner is not justified in directing payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from date of filing of claim case till the date of deposit in case of failure on the part of opposite party No.2 to deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.2,20,158/- within thirty days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment. 4. Dr.Mohanty placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narayan Singh Deo Vs. Shrinivas Sabata and another, 1976 ACJ 141, Kerala State Electricity Board and another Vs. Vasala K. and another, 2000(1) TAC 6 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Siby George and others, 2012 (4) TAC 4 (SC) submitted that the appellant is entitled to get interest from the date of accident from which he is entitled to get compensation. Further placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. K.S.Subramanian, AIR 1976 SC 2433 and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011 (1) OLR SC 405, Dr. Mohanty submitted that the duty of the High Court is to follow the opinion expressed by larger Bench of the Supreme Court. Concluding his argument, Dr. Mohanty prayed for a direction to opposite party No.2 to pay interest from the date of accident and not from the date of judgment of the Commissioner. 4 5. Per contra Mr.N.C.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 strenuously argued that interest on the amount of compensation would be payable only after expiry of 30 days from the date of order of the Commissioner and not from the date of accident. In support of his contention, Mr.Mishra relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya, AIR 2006 SC 1926; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan and another,, (2011) 7 SCC 639; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra,