Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Manju Devi and Others.

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2023FAFO/559/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal dismissing a challenge by an insurance company to a Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's award of interest. The court ruled the statutory interest rate is 12% under Section 4A, affirmed the Commissioner's factual findings, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; order forwarded to Commissioner to summon claimants and disburse fixed deposit amount with accrued interest.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 559 of 2005 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Manju Devi And Others. Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Kakkar

¶3

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Siddharth Jaiswal, learned Advocate appearing for Sri S.K. Kakkar, learned counsel for the appellant. Though notices were issued to respondents, none has appeared for them.

¶5

By way of this appeal, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the judgment and award dated 31.12.2004 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Shahjahanpur in Case No. W.C.A. No. 25 of 2002 awarding compensation of Rs.2,23,928/- with interest at the rate of 8% to the respondentclaimants.

¶6

Though various grounds are raised which are in the realm of question of facts, the learned counsel for the appellant has first pressed substantial question of law (vii) which reads as under :

¶7

"(vii) Whether the claimants-respondent filed second claim petition No.WCC 25 of 2002 by changing name of the parties as well as enhancing the salary and the amount of compensation in respect of the same accident which was not maintainable?"

¶8

As far as the above ground/substantial question of law is concerned, this is a question of fact unsupported by any such finding of fact. This was never raised before the learned Commissioner. Hence, the same is rejected.

¶9

This takes this Court to substantial question No. (ix) which reads as under:

¶10

"(ix) Whether th e workmen's compensation commissioner wrongly and arbitrarily awarded interest of 8% p.a. against the appellant company from the date of filing of the claim petition w.e.f. 31/10/2002 instead of 26/8/2003 when the appellant was impleaded as the party in the case."

¶11

The said ground/substantial question of law would go in favour of respondent-claimants as even under the statutory provisions i.e. Section 4A of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as, Act, 1923), the statutory interest has to be 12% and not 8%. Hence, this question of law is answered against the appellant-Insurance Company. Just because the appellant was impleaded as party later on, it will make no difference to the fact that interest has to be paid on the amount as it would accrue from the date of accident or from the

¶12

date the cause of action arose. This Court is fortified in its view by the decisions of the Apex Court in P.J. Narayan Vs. Union of India and others 2004 ACJ 452 and Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Siby George and Others, 2012 (4) T.A.C. 4 (S.C.). The rate of interest after amendment in Act, 1923, is 12%.

¶13

The finding of the Commissioner on other issues are not perverse. Moreover, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) & Mayan vs. Mustafa and another, 2022 ACJ 524, has held that under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, the High Court cannot enter into the arena of facts unless they are proved to be perverse and there is a question of law involved. The decision in Salim vs. New India Assurance. Co. Ltd. and another, 2022 ACJ 526 also will not permit this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of learned Commissioner.

¶14

In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶15

Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. The Registry will forward this order to the Workmen Compensation Commissioner who shall immediately summon the claimants and disburse the amount kept in fixed deposit with interest accrued on the said amount till date within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.1.2023 DKS/Imtiyaz Ahmad

¶17

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Manju Devi and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Manju Devi and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Saroj Devi and Others

Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Om Prakash and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Municipal Board Vs the Western U.P. Electric Power and Supply Co. Ltd.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kantho Devi and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Satesh and Another