Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Represented through Its Legal Cell v. Sawita Devi

Jharkhand HC4 Jul 2024MA/100/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An insurance company appealed an Employees' Compensation award of Rs.7,84,399 plus 12% interest, seeking condonation of a 213-day filing delay. The court held the 12% interest conformed to Section 4-A(3)(a), found the delay insufficiently explained citing Brahampal vs National Insurance Co., and dismissed both the condonation application and the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Represented through Its… — Insurance | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 100 of 2021 With I.A. No. 3596 of 2021

¶2

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vellore, represented through its legal cell, S.N. Ganguli Road, Ranchi … … Appellant

¶3

Versus

¶4

Sawita Devi

¶5

Puja Kumari

¶6

Suraj Yadav

¶7

Priti Kumari

¶8

Sukhdeo Yadav

¶9

Smt. Sumitra Devi

¶10

----- For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sourav Kumar Trivedi, AC to Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate

¶11

-----

¶12

07/04.07.2024 The present misc. appeal has been filed against the judgment/award dated 07.06.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Deoghar, whereby the said court has awarded Rs.7,84,399/- to the petitioners/respondent nos. 1 to 6 and has directed the appellant to pay the same within three months from the date of the order with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident, failing which further interest @ 6% per annum shall be payable over the entire amount from the date of the order till the date of payment.

¶13

I.A. No. 3596 of 2021

¶14

2. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 213 days in preferring the present appeal.

¶15

3. Since there is inordinate delay in filing the present appeal, the Court intends to see as to whether the appeal preferred by

¶16

¶17

the appellant-Insurance Company has any merit.

¶18

4. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that awarding 12% interest per annum from the date of accident i.e., 04.12.2016 over and above, the compensation amount of Rs.7,84,399/- is highly excessive and not in consonance with law.

¶19

5. Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 clearly speaks that where an employer is in default in paying compensation due under the said Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due.

¶20

6. Thus, the interest @ 12% to be paid by the employer is the minimum rate of interest as per the mandate of law. On perusal of the judgment/award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Courtcum-Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Deoghar, it appears that after calculation of compensation of Rs.7,84,399/-, simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e., 04.12.2016 has been imposed upon the appellant/employer which is in conformity with law. Hence, no error has been committed by the Commissioner while awarding the said interest over the compensation amount to be paid by the appellant in favour of the respondent nos. 1 to 6.

¶21

7. Otherwise also, there is delay of 213 days in preferring the present appeal. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Brahampal @ Sammay & Anr. Vs. National

¶22

¶23

Insurance Co.” reported in (2021) 6 SCC 512 that the cases which are filed after inordinate delay and the same is attributable to the party’s inaction and negligence, the courts have to take a strict approach so as to protect the substantial rights of the other party.

¶24

8. On perusal of the limitation petition, it appears that the appellant has not been able to sufficiently explain the reason for committing inordinate delay of 213 days in preferring the present appeal and, therefore, I am not inclined to condone the said delay.

¶25

9. I.A. No. 3596 of 2021 is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

10. Since I.A. No. 3596 of 2021 has already been dismissed,

¶27

the present miscellaneous appeal is also dismissed, which otherwise has no merit as discussed hereinabove.

¶28

Manish

¶29

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Represented through Its Legal Cell v. Sawita Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Represented through Its Legal Cell v. Sawita Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary the Land and Revenue Department

Sumitra Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Aryan Vs Union Public Service Commission

Jagdeo Kumar Oraon Represented by His Power of Attorney Holder Mr Arvind Kachhap Vs Shashikant Shau

Shilpi Chandra Vs Namrata Chandra Alias Tumpa Chandra (Dutta)