Partly allowed

Mahesh v. Naresh Kumar and Ors.

Rajasthan HC21 Apr 2023CMA/4605/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal, the High Court modified a Commissioner's award under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The court held that interest must accrue from the date of filing the claim petition, not from the date of the award, as directed in Siby George. The penalty on the insurer was deemed sufficient.

What did the court decide?

Award modified to entitle appellant to interest from the date of filing the claim application instead of after a month from the date of the award.

Mahesh Vs Naresh Kumar and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/007201]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4605/2008

¶4

Mahesh son of Shri Girdhari Lal, aged 29 years, resident of village Mohisada, PS singhana, district jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.Naresh Kumar son of Shri Ram Singh, aged 29 years, resident of Abara, PS Bahal, District Bhiwani (Haryana) 2.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur through Regional Manager.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma, Adv. On behalf of Mr. Sandeep Mathur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Adv. For respondent No.1.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶11

Order

¶12

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 19.04.2023 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 21.04.2023

¶13

The present appeal filed by the appellant under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment dated 15.10.2007 passed by Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 in Claim Petition WCCNF No.228/2006 by which Commissioner had awarded compensation of Rs.4,99,152/- with interest.

¶14

The Commissioner after framing the issues, evaluating evidence available on record and hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition in favour of the appellant.

[2023/RJJP/007201]

[CMA-4605/2008]

(2 of 3)

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award appellant-Mahesh has submitted the instant appeal, inter alia, on various grounds.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Commissioner has erred in awarding the interest from 15.11.2007. He further submits that interest should be from the date of filing the claim petition and not after a month from the date of award. Learned Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- only on non-appellant No.1. So, the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of “Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Siby George and Ors. (C.A. No.5669/2012 arising out of SLP (C) No.9516/2010)” decided on 31.07.2012.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act has not committed any illegality. So, the appeal be dismissed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of “Golla Rajanna and Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager and Anr.; (2017)1 SCC 45”, decided on 23.11.2016.

¶23

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned judgment and award.

¶24

Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding the case of Siby George (Supra) directed that interest on award should be from the date of filing the claim petition and not from the date of the award.

¶25

[2023/RJJP/007201]

¶26

[CMA-4605/2008]

¶27

In my considered opinion, Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act has committed error in awarding interest of the award amount, after a month from the date of award, whereas it should be from the date of filing the claim petition. Learned Tribunal has imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- against the respondent No.1. In my considered opinion, penalty imposed by the Commissioner is sufficient. So, no interference is required regarding penalty imposed by the learned Commissioner on respondent No.1.

¶28

The appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed and award of the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act is modified to the extent that appellant is entitled to get interest on award amount from the date of filing the claim application instead of after a month from date of the award.

¶29

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶30

Seema/89

Mahesh v. Naresh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh v. Naresh Kumar and Ors.

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

Vinod Kumar and Ors. Vs Smt Kamla Devi and Ors.

Rati Ram Rawat Vs Asstt Engineer J v v N L Kotputali and Ors.

Ramesh S/O Shri Ram Kunwar Vs State of Rajasthan

K K Agarwl Vs the Commissioner Wcc Jaipur

Karandeep Sheoran Son of Shri Rajendra Singh Sheoran Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Late Bhagwan Das Vs Rajesh Sharma S/O Shri Kishangopal Sharma