Partly allowed

Smt Janki Devi v. Narendra Singh and Another

Uttarakhand HC15 Dec 2017AO/403/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed an appeal against a Workmen's Compensation Award. It held that the Commissioner erred by awarding 8% interest instead of the statutory 12% per annum under Section 4-A. The Court modified the award to grant interest from the date of the accident against the insurance company.

What did the court decide?

Modified the award to grant compensation of Rs. 3,11,970/- along with interest at 12% per annum from 01.02.2006 till realization against the insurance company.

Smt Janki Devi Vs Narendra Singh and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Appeal From Order No.403 of 2008

¶3

Smt. Janki Devi …..Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

Narendra Singh & Anr. ….Respondents

¶6

Mr. Neeraj Uprety, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Devendra Pant, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr. Vinay Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶7

Hon’ble Lok Pal Singh, J.

¶8

This appeal, under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, has been preferred against the part of judgment and award dated 12.08.2008 passed by Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Pithoragarh, in W.C. case no.3/2006, whereby the learned Commissioner has allowed the claim petition to the extent of ` 3,11,970/- and it has been directed that the amount of compensation shall be payable by respondent no.1-owner within one month from the date of order, failing which, the claimant shall be entitled for interest on the amount of compensation @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization. By the impugned judgment and award, learned Commissioner has also directed the respondent no.1 shall recover the amount of compensation from the respondent no.2 Insurance Company.

¶9

Vide order dated 13.10.2017, this appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

¶10

¶11

“Whether the Workmen Compensation Commissioner erred in law in awarding lesser amount in favour of the claimants as well as in awarding the conditional interest @ 8% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition, instead of from the date of expiry of 30 days period after the accident had occurred?”

¶12

3. Section 4-A of Workmen’s Compensation Act

¶13

is relevant and is reproduced hereunder:

¶14

“4-A Compensation to be paid when due and

¶15

penalty for default.-

¶16

(1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim.

¶17

(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall-

¶18

(a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent 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; and

¶19

(b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty.

¶20

Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to

¶21

¶22

the employer to show cause why it should not be passed.”

¶23

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Siby George and others, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 540 , has held that the relevant date of payment of compensation is the date of incident.

¶24

In the present case, the accident occurred on 02.01.2006 when the deceased Lalit Ram, who was employed as driver by respondent no.1, met with an accident during the course of employment. From the perusal of Section 4A of the Act, it would reveal that compensation shall be paid to the injured or to the dependents, in case of death, within 30 days from the date of accident and where compensation is not paid within 30 days, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner shall direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent 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. In the present case, admittedly, compensation has not been paid within 30 days of the accident. Thus, the claimant was constrained to file the claim petition before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, but the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, without following the statutory provisions of Section 4-A of the Act, has passed the impugned Award. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner has awarded conditional interest @ 8 % per annum on the amount of

¶25

¶26

compensation, which is against the statutory provisions of Act. The appellant-claimant is entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident, i.e., from 02.01.2006 till the date of its realization.

¶27

Besides above, learned Commissioner has further committed illegality in fixing the jointly and severally liability on the owner and the New India Insurance Company Ltd. and giving the recoverable rights to the Owner/respondent no.1. As the vehicle was insured with the respondent no.2 Insurance Company, it is the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation/damages to the claimant.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and award dated 12.08.2008 passed by Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Pithoragarh, in W.C. case no.3/2006, is modified to the extent that the claimant shall be entitled to get the compensation, as awarded by the court below, i.e., 3,11,970/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 02.01.2006 till the date actual payment is made from the respondent no.2-The New India Insurance Company Ltd.

¶29

Appeal is disposed of, as above. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

¶30

In the facts and circumstances, parties shall bear their own cost.

¶31

Rajni

Smt Janki Devi v. Narendra Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Janki Devi v. Narendra Singh and Another

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

New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Meena Joshi and Ors.

Cantonment Board Landour Cantt Vs Deepak Kumar Saxena

Cantonment Board Landour Cantt Vs Deepak Kumar Saxena

Smt. Kalawati Devi and Another Vs Regional Manager and Another

Lalit Singh Vs State

State Of Uttarakhand Vs Kamal Nayan Kalra