Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs Ashraf

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.—This is an appeal filed u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act. The employer is the appellant. The first respondent was the applicant. The second respondent was the Sub Contractor, who engaged the applicant and the third respondent is the insurer. The first respondent while working under the second respondent, who was the Sub Contractor for the appellant, suffered certain injuries resulting in cent percent permanent disability. The first respondent moved the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner. The said authority awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,39,380/- with 12% interest from November 24, 1999, the date of accident. The award was passed on September 20, 2002, with a direction to pay the amount within one month. The appellant challenges the said award on two grounds. The first ground is that the insurer is liable to pay the interest also. The second point is that the interest was liable to be awarded only from the date, the award became enforcible, that is, 30 days after September 20, 2002.

The first point raised by the appellant is covered against it by the decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya and Another, . The second point raised by the appellant is covered against it by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata and Another, . The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows at p.237 of LLJ:

Section 3 of the Act deals with the employer''s liability for compensation. Sub-section (1) of that Section provides that the employer shall be liable to pay compensation if ''personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. It was not the case of the employer that the right to compensation was taken away under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil Court for damages, in respect of the injury, against the employer or any other person. The employer, therefore, became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workmen by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of the employment. It is, therefore, futile to contend that the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioner''s order dated May 6, 1969 u/s 19. What the Section provides is that if any question arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation or as to the amount of duration of the compensation it shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. There is, therefore, nothing to justify the argument that the employer''s liability to pay compensation u/s 3, in respect of the injury, was suspended until after the settlement contemplated by Section 19. The appellant was thus liable to pay compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the appellant, and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant brought to our notice a recent decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and Another, , wherein it was held that interest is payable only from the date of the award. It is a decision rendered by a Bench of two Judges. The above apparent conflict between the two decisions of the Apex Court has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekha 2008 II LLJ 137 (Ker-NOC) and held that this Court is bound by the decision of the Constitution Bench. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in that case. So, the second contention of the appellant also cannot be accepted.

In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.