Arjun vs Shivaputrappa

Anand Byrareddy, J.—These appeals are heard and decided at the stage of admission. The only point raised in the first of the appeals MFA 30816/2011 which is filed by the widow of the claimant - workman is, whether the Commissioner was justified in awarding interest from the date of award as provided in law, which should be one month from the date of the accident.

The question is to be answered straightaway in favour of the appellants. The appellants are entitled to interest on the award amount from one month from the date of the accident and not from the date of the award. Accordingly the award stands modified.

However, the Insurance Company has also preferred an appeal M.F.A. 32325/2010, which is the connected appeal. The substantial question of law raised is, whether the Commissioner could ignore the categorical admission of there being no relationship of the workman and the alleged employer Respondent No. 1.

In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the claimant who was said to be the widow of the workman, has categorically admitted that she does not know who Respondent No. 1 was, and secondly, that to her knowledge, her husband was employed by one other, namely Respondent No. 2, whereas in the Claim Petition, it was stated that it was Respondent No. 1 who was the employer of the deceased workman. It is this discrepancy and contradiction which the learned counsel seeks to emphasize upon in contending that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation having ignored the evidence that was on record, would raise a substantial question of law and it would have to be straightaway answered in favour of the appellant - Insurance Company.

However, given the circumstances that the claimant was an illiterate widow and not worldly wise and was not also capable of fielding clever questions posed in cross-examination, has probably stated incorrectly as to whether one or the other was the employer. This by itself would not defeat the claim for compensation, as it is not in dispute that the workman was the husband of the claimant and that he had died as a result of the accident. The mere contradiction of the claimant as elicited in the cross-examination by itself ought not to defeat the claim. This though may be a substantial question in the eye of law, by itself would not enable the appellant to succeed.

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimants MFA. 30816/2011 is allowed in part in terms as stated above and the appeal filed by the insurer MFA 32325/2010 is hereby dismissed.

The appellants - claimants are entitled to interest on the compensation amount, one month from the date of the accident instead of from the date of award, as directed by the Commissioner. In the above light of the matter, the appellants - claimants are entitled to an enhanced interest of Rs. 2,20,167/- in addition to the compensation awarded.

The amount in deposit before this Court shall be withdrawn by the claimants.

The insurer is directed to deposit the additional amount of interest amounting to Rs. 2,20,167/-, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which the claimants shall also be entitled to withdraw.

Since there is a conditional order insofar as the condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the claimant, that shall apply and the claimant shall be denied interest for a period of 179 days.