NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Vs. BUDH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance made by the Insurance Company, appellant herein is that the Commissioner has erred in imposing penalty and interest on the Insurance Company. On the first aspect, the order of the Commissioner is absolutely clear when it says that the amount of penalty is to be recovered only from the employer. The law on this point is well settled in the decision of the Supreme Court in L.R. Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Mahavir Mahto and Anr.

(2.) ON the second aspect, learned Counsel submits that the Commissioner was wrong in awarding interest from the date of the accident and not from the date of judgment as the amount would become due only from the date of the award. This Court in FAO (WCA) No. 270 of 2002, Sita Ram v. Satvinder Singh and Anr. decided on 30.5.2008, held: The Constitution Bench had already decided the question as to when compensation falls due in terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Unfortunately, this decision of the Constitution Bench was not brought to the notice of the Apex Court while deciding National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and Anr. 2007 ACJ 845. Therefore, I feel that this Court is bound by the judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court and I accordingly hold that the compensation falls due on the date when the accident takes place and in case the same is not deposited within thirty days, the workman is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 12% per annum without having to show that delay in depositing the compensation was attributable to the employer. While taking this view, I am supported by a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekha. This principle of law has been reiterated by this Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Miss Sushma and Ors. 2008 (2) Shim. LC 424.