Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Sh.Sukhvinder Singh & Anr on 14 March, 2012
Author: Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 111/2012
% Date of Decision: March 14, 2012
The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.A.K.Soni, Advocate
versus
Sh.Sukhvinder Singh & anr ..... Respondents
Through : None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
VEENA BIRBAL, J. (ORAL)
*
1. Present is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees
Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') challenging the
order dated 30th December, 2011 wherein appellant has been directed to pay
interest @ 12% per annum from 17.11.2008 to 18.12.2008 on the amount of
compensation i.e., Rs.4,42,008/-.
2. Briefly the background is as under:-
On 19th November, 2002, an accident had taken place within the
jurisdiction of PS Bagodar District Girdih, Jharkhand wherein respondent
no.1 received injuries by an accident arising out of and in the course of his
employment as driver on Truck No.DL 1GB 1638 owned by respondent no.2
and insured with appellant. Thereupon respondent no.1 filed a claim
application before the Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation
Act claiming compensation on the ground that he had sustained 100%
disability as he was unable to drive the vehicle. Considering the relevant
facts and circumstances, learned Commissioner vide order dated 25th August,
2008 awarded compensation of Rs.4,42,008/- in favour of respondent no.1
and appellant was directed to pay the said compensation amount. It is stated
that the said amount was deposited with the Commissioner on 19th
December, 2008. Against the said order, appellant had filed an appeal being
FAO 19/2009 before this court. The same was dismissed on 19th April,
2011. Thereafter, respondent no.1 filed an application under section 4A of
the Act for the grant of interest on the compensation amount before the
Commissioner. The said application was decided vide impugned order dated
30th December, 2011 wherein interest as stated above has been awarded.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that appellant is not
liable to pay interest. It is contended that interest fell due on the date of
adjudication, as such, same was not payable after 30 days of the date of
accident, as is held by the learned Commissioner. It is further submitted
that in the present case it was unscheduled injuries suffered by respondent
no.1, as such interest could have been awarded only after the adjudication.
4. It may be noted that in the application for award of interest of
claimant, no reply has been filed by the appellant nor the same was contested
by them before the learned Commissioner, as is noted in the impugned
order.
5. Present is a case of total disability covered under the list of injuries
under Schedule I of the Act. In a 100% disability case, it cannot said to be a
case of unscheduled injury, as is contended. Learned counsel for appellant
has failed to substantiate its stand.
6. The question whether the interest would be payable 30 days after
adjudication by the Commissioner under the Act or 30 days after the date of
accident has already been dealt in detail by this court in FAO 53/2012 today
itself wherein considering various judgments of the Supreme Court, it has
been held that interest becomes payable after one month from the date of
accident and not after one month of adjudication by the Commissioner.
Accordingly, following the said judgment, present appeal stands dismissed.
CM 4465/2012 (for stay)
In view of the above order, no further order is required on the present
application. The same stands disposed of accordingly.
VEENA BIRBAL, J
March 14, 2012
ssb
