Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
1 Leave granted.
2 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court of Orissa
dated 11 April 2018 in FAO No 358 of 2018.
3 The first appellant was working as a labourer in a truck bearing registration No
OAX 2764 and was engaged by the second respondent for the loading and
unloading of sand. On 5 June 2000, the truck met with an accident as a result of
which the first appellant suffered multiple injuries in his abdomen and kidney. He
underwent a surgery and was discharged from the hospital on 22 June 2000. A
Sanjay Kumar
dated 24 May 2016. It was held that the first appellant in spite of all the
possible treatment became permanently disabled upto 85% which would reduce
his earning capacity upto 100%. Since he was receiving Rs 2100 as a monthly
income, the total compensation payable was arrived at Rs 2,78,926 (60% of
2100 (monthly income) x 221.37 (age factor as he was 22 years old) x 100 (loss
of earning)). The Labour Commissioner directed that the compensation must be
paid together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the principal
sum awarded from the date of accident till the deposit.
4 The first respondent, who is the insurer, filed an appeal before the High Court,
being FAO No 358 of 2018, with a delay of 619 days. The High Court, by its
order dated 11 April 2018, dismissed the application for condonation on the
ground that there was an unexplained delay of 619 days. Nonetheless, the High
Court directed that the appellants are not entitled to any interest on the
compensation awarded except the accrued interest. The order of the High Court
was sought to be reviewed, but the petition for review was also dismissed on 8
February 2019 on the ground that the first appellant has already withdrawn the
entire awarded amount along with the accrued interest.
5 The judgment of the High Court is inexplicable. Having dismissed the appeal of
the insurer on the ground of limitation, there was no occasion for the High Court
to interfere on merits with the award of interest on compensation under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923. When the appeal was dismissed on the
ground of limitation, the High Court could not have entertained it on merits. The
error on the part of the High Court has led a labourer and his spouse to travel all
the way to this Court. Though the accident took place in 2000, the course of
litigation would now end only with the present judgment. To set the record
straight, the High Court has erred on merits as well. Section 4A of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct
the employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding the
lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer does not pay the
compensation within one month from the date it fell due. In Saberabibi
Yakubhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.1, this Court held that
interest shall be paid on the compensation awarded from the date of the
accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim in view of the decision of
this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George2 where it was held
that compensation would fall due from the date of the accident. Further, in the
recent decision in P. Meenaraj v. P. Adigurusamy & Anr.3, this Court
reiterated that the applicant is entitled to interest from the date of accident
while rejecting the submission that the award of interest should be after the
expiry of 30 days from the date of accident. Thus, there was no legal basis for
the High Court to delete the order of payment of interest.
6 For the above reasons, we set aside the direction contained in the order of the
High Court dated 11 April 2018 by which the order for the payment of interest
was deleted. The order for the payment of interest which was issued by the
Additional Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner, Workmen Compensation
shall together with the award of compensation stand restored.
7 Though the first respondent has not appeared in these proceedings, despite
service of notice, we are of the view that an award of costs is necessary since
the appellants have been compelled to move this Court against a palpably
erroneous order of the High Court passed in an appeal filed beyond limitation by
the respondent. The insurer took the contest to the High Court in an appeal
barred by limitation. A well-resourced insurance company has used its position of
dominance to evade the cause of justice. Such strategies must be eschewed. In
addition to the compensation and interest which have been awarded, the
appellants shall be entitled to costs quantified at Rs 50,000 which shall be paid
1 (2014) 2 SCC 298 2 (2012) 12 SCC 540 3 Civil Appeal No 209 of 2022, decided on 6 January 2022
over within a period of four weeks, together with the component of the award
inclusive of interest that remains to be paid.
8 The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
9 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
[Dinesh Maheshwari]
New Delhi; January 24, 2022
-S-
ITEM NO.19 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XI-A
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).12228/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-04-2018 in FAO No. 358/2018 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack)
AJAYA KUMAR DAS & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 24-01-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chitta Ranjan Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Ronak Baid, Adv.
Ms. Neetu Rathore, Adv.
Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 Leave granted.
2 The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
3 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Signed reportable is placed on the file)