AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—In this appeal filed u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, order dated 17.03.1998 passed by the Compensation, Hanumangarh in case No. 7/97 is under challenge, whereby, the appellant has been directed to deposit Rs. 15,494 on account of interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
It is admitted position of the case that respondent No. 1 is workman and was working under the control of the respondents and he met with an accident on 27.05.1995 while working on duty and certain injuries were sustained by him. Although the respondent-workman was entitled for compensation under the Act of 1923, but, he was not paid compensation for near-about two years and three months; and, after determining compensation by the appellant, the said amount was deposited by the appellant before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner on 18.09.1997 through demand draft No. 056487 dated 12.09.1997.
The Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Hanumangarh issued notice after registering Case No. 7/97 and, upon receiving notice, respondent No. 1 filed claim petition before respondent No. 2 claiming compensation along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, after recording evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that compensation has rightly been determined by the Board, however, it gave finding that appellant is liable to pay interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. in terms of Section 4A(3) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act. The appellant is challenging the order whereby learned Commissioner passed order for interest amount of Rs. 15,492/-.
In my opinion, when limitation is prescribed in the Act for payment of compensation within 30 days, then, compensation was to be determined within stipulated time; but, admittedly, determination of compensation was made on 28.07.1997; and, thereafter, sanction was issued and compensation was deposited in the office of the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation on 18.09.1997 which is after the limitation prescribed in the Act.
It is required to be observed that the accident took place on 27.05.1995 and respondent No. 1 workman lost his one hand and became disabled and his compensation was determined after gross delay; and, thereafer, this appeal has been filed. In my opinion, the order passed by the learned Commissioner does not require any interference.
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.