The United India Insurance ... vs Mohd. Sadiq And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3438 Tel

     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

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.

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