Skip to main content

Liability To Pay Interest On Compensation Amount Is From Date It Falls Due

Citation : Shobha vs Chairman, Vithalrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. , CA 1860 OF 2022 

Date of Judgment/Order : 11 March 2022

Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court

Corum: M.R. Shah, J.

Background

A sugarcane cutting labourer while engaged as a labourer by the Labour Contractor for cutting the sugarcane, which was to be supplied to the sugar factory (Respondent) died from snake bite. The appellants herein – heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation when Neither the sugar factory nor the contractor paid the compensation due and payable under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.

The Commissioner on 25.01.2017, allowed the said application and directed the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein jointly and severally to pay the compensation amount of Rs.3,06,180/- alongwith simple interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident, i.e., 29.11.2009 till its full realization. The Commissioner also imposed the penalty of 50% on the compensation amount, i.e., Rs. 1,53,090/-. The High Court on appeal set aside the penalty and modified the interest awarded @ 12% p.a. from the date of incident and has directed that the interest @ 12% p.a. shall become payable from the period after expiry of one month from 25.01.2017. Being dissatisfied, original claimants have preferred the present appeal.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held the High Court had taken into consideration Section 4A(3)(b) only which deals with imposition of penalty but should have also noted and/or considered Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act, 1923.

The Supreme Court observed that the provision for levy of interest would be under Section 4A(3)(a) and the provision for levy of penalty would be under Section 4A(3)(b).

As per Section 4A of the Act, 1923 compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. Therefore, the liability to pay the compensation would arise immediately on the death of the deceased. Even as per Section 4A(2), in cases, where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the employee, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the employee to make any further claim. Therefore, the liability to pay the compensation would arise from the date on which the deceased died for which he is entitled to the compensation and therefore, the liability to pay the interest on the amount of arrears/compensation shall be from the date of accident and not from the date of the order passed by the Commissioner. As per Section 4A(3)(b), if the Commissioner is satisfied that there is no justification for the delay, it can direct the employer, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, to pay a further sum not exceeding 50% of such amount by way of penalty. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more