Friday, 24, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rajinder @ Surinder & Ors. vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2015 Del

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 2015 Del
Judgement Date : 25 April, 2017

Delhi High Court
Rajinder @ Surinder & Ors. vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... on 25 April, 2017
*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         FAO No. 205/2016

%                                                     25th April, 2017

RAJINDER @ SURINDER & ORS.              ..... Appellants
                  Through: Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate.

                          versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
                                       ..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Sunanda Nimisha, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This first appeal is filed under Section 30 of the

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act') by the

appellants/claimants against the order of the Employee's

Compensation Commissioner dated 14.1.2016. Appellants/claimants

are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.1.2016 on the ground

that by the impugned order payment of interest has only been ordered

from 21.7.2002 till 16.3.2005 i.e the date of deposit of compensation,

instead of interest being granted till the actual date of payment and as

is required by Section 4A of the Act.

2. In my opinion in fact, the entire impugned order dated

14.1.2016 is completely without jurisdiction and the

appellants/claimants are in fact lucky even to get interest 12% per

annum simple from 21.7.2002 till 16.3.2005 inasmuch as the claim

application which has now been allowed by the impugned order dated

14.1.2016 is clearly barred by principle underlying the provision of

Order II Rule 2 CPC. The reasons for the same are given hereinafter.

3. Appellants/claimants had earlier filed a claim petition and

which was allowed by the Employee's Compensation Commissioner

vide order dated 3.3.2005 awarding an amount of Rs. 3,34,065/-.

Against this judgment dated 3.3.2005 a challenge was laid by the

insurance company, respondent herein, but this challenge was not

successful and the FAO No. 94/2005 was dismissed by a learned

Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 17.8.2012. The order

of the Employee's Compensation Commissioner dated 3.3.2005

awarding compensation to the appellants/claimants hence became

final.

4. Indubitably, as per the earlier judgment dated 3.3.2005,

the penalty of 50% was not granted to the claimants as per Section 4A

of the Act and nor was any interest ordered to be paid. Though the

judgment dated 3.3.2005 is not clear, counsel for the

appellants/claimants states that when by the judgment dated 3.3.2005

compensation of Rs. 3,34,065/- was awarded, the said amount did not

include the penalty of 50% and interest at 12% per annum simple on

account of non-compliance of Section 4A of the Act which requires the

deposit of compensation on account of accident within a period of one

month.

5. Once by the main judgment dated 3.3.2005

appellants/claimants were not awarded penalty of 50% and interest on

the payable amount required by Section 4A of the Act, then it was for

the appellants/claimants to file an appeal against the judgment dated

3.3.2005 seeking the penalty of 50% as also interest in terms of Section

4A of the Act. Appellants/claimants however did not do so and now

appellants/claimants have again filed a fresh claim petition which has

been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 14.1.2016 giving an

amount of Rs.1,06,900/- to the appellants/claimants being interest at

12% per annum from the date of the accident being 21.7.2002 till the

deposit of the compensation amount on 16.3.2005. It is therefore clear

that the claim petition which has now been allowed by the impugned

judgment dated 14.1.2016 was itself misconceived and in fact the

Employee's Compensation Commissioner had in fact no power to

again allow a fresh claim petition to be filed with respect to the claim

towards interest once interest was not granted as per the original

judgment dated 3.3.2005 and which had become final.

Appellants/claimants are therefore already very lucky in getting

interest by the impugned judgment, although, no interest whatsoever

could have been granted. Once interest could not have been granted by

the impugned judgment there does not arise issue of any further

interest being granted to the appellants/claimants from 16.3.2005 till

the date of payment.

6. Dismissed.

APRIL 25, 2017/ib                           VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter