- (1.) ALTHOUGH both these appeals arise out of two different awards, both dated 30. 6. 2004, but the appeals are based on the same factual matrix and raise identical legal issues. Therefore, both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment. The appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the said two awards passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that heera Lal Jat was the driver on truck bearing registration No. RJ 19-G 0993, while ram Narayan Jat was working on the said truck as khalasi (cleaner ). On 9. 10. 2003, the said truck met with an accident near village Khariya Mithapur under P. S. Bil-ara, District Jodhpur. Consequently, Heera lal Jat expired and Ram Narayan Jat broke both of his feet below ankle. Since Heera lal Jat's family members, which included his aged parents and his minor son, suddenly lost the sole bread-earner of the family, they filed a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for a compensation of Rs. 4,15,960. Meanwhile Ram Narayan Jat also filed a claim petition before the same Workmen's compensation Commissioner for a compensation of Rs. 5,37,600. Both the claim petitions were decided by two separate awards dated 30. 6. 2004. In the first award passed in the case of Chagna Ram, the learned Commissioner granted a claim of rs. 4,10,200 along with an interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The said amount was directed to be deposited within a period of 30 days and in case the said amount was not deposited within the said period then 15 per cent interest per annum had to be paid on the said amount. Likewise, in the second case of Ram Narayan jat, the learned Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,34,400 along with interest. In case the said amount was not deposited within a period of 30 days, a penal interest was imposed. Hence these appeals before this court.
(3.) MS. Manju Jain, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, argued that firstly, unless there is a specific condition in the policy placing a burden on the insurance company to pay the interest on the compensation award, the liability for the payment of interest cannot be imposed on the insurance company. However, despite the absence of such condition in the insurance policy, the learned Commissioner has imposed the liability of payment of interest on the insurance company. Secondly, according to the learned counsel there is no provision in the Workmen's compensation Act which empowers the commissioner to impose penal interest in case the amount is not deposited within the stipulated period. Therefore, the imposition of penal interest is illegal. In order to support this contention, she has relied upon the case of National Insurance Co, Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur, 2004 ACJ 648 (SC ).;