Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923: s. 4A – Award of interest on compensation to labourer who sufferred permanent disability upto 85% – Appeal thereagainst by insurer – High Court having dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation directed that the claimant are not entitled to any interest on the compensation awarded except the accrued interest – On appeal, held: Judgment of the High Court is inexplicable – Having dismissed the appeal of the insurer on the ground of limitation, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere on merits with the award of interest on compensation – Error on the part of the High Court has led a labourer and his spouse to travel all the way to this Court – Thus, in addition to the compensation and interest which have been awarded, the appellants entitled to costs quantified at Rs 50,000/– Costs. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The judgment of the High Court is inexplicable. Having dismissed the appeal of the insurer on the ground of limitation, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere on merits with the award of interest on compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923. The error on the part of the High Court has led a labourer and his spouse to travel all the way to this Court. Though the accident took place in 2000, the course of litigation would now end only with the present judgment. The High Court has erred on merits as well. Section 4A of the 1923 Act stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding the lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer does not pay the compensation within one month from the date it fell due. Interest shall be paid on the compensation awarded from the date of the accident. Thus, there was no legal basis for the High Court to delete the order of payment of interest, and the said direction is set aside. The order for the payment of interest by the Commissioner together with the award of compensation is restored. [Paras 5, 6][470-G-H; 471-A-B, D-F]
1.2 Though the first respondent has not appeared in these proceedings, despite service of notice, an award of costs is necessary since the appellants have been compelled to move this Court against a palpably erroneous order of the High Court passed in an appeal filed beyond limitation by the respondent. The insurer took the contest to the High Court in an appeal barred by limitation. A well-resourced insurance company has used its position of dominance to evade the cause of justice. Such strategies must be eschewed. In addition to the compensation and interest which have been awarded, the appellants would be entitled to costs quantified at Rs 50,000. [Para 7][471-F-G; 472-A]
Saberabibi Yakubhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 298 : [2014] (1) SCR 303; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George (2012) 12 SCC 540 : [2012] (6) SCR 1079; P. Meenaraj v. P. Adigurusamy & Anr. Civil Appeal No 209 of 2022, decided on 6 January 2022 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.