Niroti Devi vs Balaji Roadways

Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimants, who are legal heirs and representatives of deceased Vikash Upadhyay @ Vikash Tiwari against the judgment dated 27th November, 2009 passed in C.W.C. No. 12/2006 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, Ranchi by which the appellants/claimants have been directed to be paid Rs. 2,60,107 in lieu of the death of Vikash Upadhyay @ Vikash Tiwari. The facts in brief is that the deceased was employed as a cleaner on a Truck bearing registration No. JH-1L/6963. On 2nd September, 2005 on the direction of the driver of the Truck, he went to fetch water from N.T.P.C. Pump House but suddenly due to overflow of water in the canal, drowned into water and died. Since the deceased-Vikash Upadhyay @ Vikash Tiwari died in course of his employment, the claimants, who are parents of the deceased, have filed application before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi vide C.W.C. No. 12 of 2006. At the adjudication, a sum of Rs. 2,60,107 was awarded in favour of the claimants and the Insurance Company-Respondent No. 2 has been directed to satisfy the awarded amount.

This appeal has been preferred raising grievance that no interest on the compensation amount has been directed to be paid from the date of filing of application rather interest @ 9% has been directed to be paid, if the awarded amount is not paid within thirty (30) days from the date of said order.

It is contended that as per Sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923, the interest on the awarded amount was liable to be paid when the compensation became due against the employer.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Insurance Company has raised objection that compliance of Sections 10A and 10B was not done by the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, he is at fault. The respondent-Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the consequences and they are not liable to pay interest if the compensation amount was not paid to the claimants in time or if information to pay the compensation was not communicated to the Insurance Company in time.

I have gone through the relevant provisions i.e. Section 4A, Sections 10A and 10B of the Employee''s Compensation Act, 1923. The Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability of paying interest on the awarded amount on the ground raised by the learned Counsel. Even assuming it to be correct that no information was given by the employer to the Insurance Company in time when the compensation fell due, the facts remain that after filing of the application before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, this fact came within the knowledge of the respondent-Insurance Company. It is evident that instead of tendering the compensation amount at the very initial stage when the respondent-Insurance Company appeared before the learned Commissioner, they went on contesting the issues raised by the claimants.

In the circumstances and also considering the provisions contained under Sub-section (3) of Section 4A, the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner-cum-Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay interest from the date of filing of the application. In that view of the matter, the respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay interest (r) 9% as decided by the learned Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner but from the date of filing of the application till the date on which the Insurance Company had tendered the awarded amount i.e. on 31st December, 2009. With this observation and modification in the award, the appeal stands partly allowed.