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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more