In a miscellaneous first appeal, the Court dismissed the claim challenging the date for payment of interest on workmen's compensation, holding that interest is payable from the date of the accident rather than the date of acceptance of the lawyer notice.
No merit in the appeal; order of the Commissioner regarding interest date is upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/24TH MAGHA 1933
MFA.No. 103 of 2011
WCC.66/2003 of COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER),ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT(S)/IST OPP. PARTY:
K.K.BUILDERS,
CIVI ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, PERAVOOR-670673 KANNUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
SMT.K.S.SUMITHA
SRI.R.SANJITH
RESPONDENT(S)/APPLICANT/2ND OPP. PARTY:
R3 BY ADV.SRI.VPK.PANICKER
R2 BY ADV.SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN R2 BY ADV.SMT.K.B.REKHA
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
M.F.A (WC) No.103 of 2011-D
Dated, this the 13th day of February, 2012
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
The only question of law raised on the basis of which the appeal was admitted was the date from which interest is payable on the compensation amount.
and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
(2) SCC 9). Both the cases were rendered under the Motor
MFA 103/2011 -2-
Vehicles Act and interest was at 9%. We see no relevance for the said case law having regard to the provisions contained in Section 4A of the Act. In fact, the date of accident would have been relevant date going by the decision rendered by a Bench of four Judges of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata [(1976)1 SCC 289] . There may be subsequent judgments indicating contrary decision. But, they are all rendered by smaller Bench. In this case interest has been directed to be paid from a later date than the date of accident. Therefore we see no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed.
(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE.
MS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interest on workmen's compensation is payable from the date of the accident or the date of acceptance of the lawyer notice.
Whether the earlier decisions under the Motor Vehicles Act are applicable to proceedings under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Supe Dei vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd.Distinguished¶31
Supe Dei vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. (2009 (4) SCC 513) · Who else cites this
Kaushnuma Begum vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.Distinguished¶31
Kaushnuma Begum vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. (2001 (2) SCC 9) · Who else cites this
Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas SabataFollowed¶31
Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata [(1976)1 SCC 289] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.K.Builders
Civi Engineering Contractors
K.S.Sumitha
R.Sanji
Authority Under Workmen, Compensation Commissioner
K.S.Mani
K.M. Joseph
M.L. Joseph Francis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
