THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.628 OF 2005
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the insurance company, which is Opposite Party No.2, in W.C.No.12 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Adilabad challenging the award passed therein dt.03.05.2005.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this Appeal are that respondents 1 and 2 herein are the parents/dependents of the deceased Mohd. Rafiq who died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 27.04.2003 at 5.00 AM near Boyapally Village under Tandur Police Station limits, Adilabad District. The deceased was aged about 22 years and was employed as Cleaner on vehicle bearing No.APIU/2469 of Opposite Party No.1 which was involved in the accident and his monthly wages were Rs.3,500/-. The applicants prayed to the Commissioner to award Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their son from the Opposite Parties along with interest at 12% per annum and costs.
3. The Commissioner held that the deceased was an employee of the owner of the vehicle (Opposite Party No.2) and also that the accident occurred during the course of his employment. As regards 2 the wages, as against Rs.3,500/- claimed by the claimants to be the monthly wages of the deceased, the Commissioner has considered the eligible salary of the deceased to be at Rs.2,181/- per month, which was the minimum rates of wages fixed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.30 dt.27.07.2000 as on the date of the accident. Taking into account the age of the deceased as 22 years, the Commissioner awarded the compensation at Rs.2,41,515/- and directed the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum to be calculated after 30 days of the accident till the date of deposit of the compensation.
4. Aggrieved by the award, the insurance company has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in making the insurer liable to pay interest, which is against the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act?
(ii) Whether the order of the Commissioner is sustainable in awarding interest on the awarded amount and making the insurer liable?
5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner ought to have seen that the applicants failed to prove that the insured was insolvent and should have made the appellant liable to pay the compensation amount only. However, he could not point out any provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 3
6. This Court finds that there is no mandatory requirement that the insured has to be insolvent before the insurance company can be directed to pay compensation to the applicants. Therefore, this argument is rejected. As regards the liability of the insurance company to pay interest on the compensation awarded, it is settled law that wherever compensation is awarded, interest is payable thereon till the date of settlement of the award. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned award.
7. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 12.11.2021 Svv