47 FA 1012 OF 2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 47 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1012 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN FA NO. 270 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1012 OF 2019 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER M.S.E.D.C LTD. VERSUS SHRI. HARIDAS SANGRAM GAVHANE ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Koregave, Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Saiprasad S. Patil a/w Adv. Ankushraje Jadhav ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 20.08.2026 PER COURT : Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is preferred against judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act and Judge, Labour Court, Solapur on 29.07.2017 fixing the compensation at Rs. 8,61,120/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident till the realisation of the compensation amount. 3. At the outset it needs to be mentioned that out of the awarded compensation amount of Rs. 6,45,842/- has already been paid to the respondents/claimants and the additional amount of Rs. 2,15,280/- was deposited before the Commissioner Workmen Compensation. A certificate to that effect issued on 07.10.2017 is placed on record. 1/3 47 FA 1012 OF 2019.odt 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 6000/- per month, which is wrongly recorded as Rs. 8000/- per month. The lapses are attributable to the respondents. Hence, the appellant was not liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. It is further contended that necessary material particulars were not supplied by the respondents. No supporting evidence showing monthly salary of Rs. 8000/- per month was produced on record by the respondents. It is vehemently contended that the quantum arrived at is exorbitant and arbitrary. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and order. It is submitted that the death of the employee was within knowledge of the appellant and so was his salary. The delay is caused at the instance of the appellant in paying the compensation. 6. It has been recorded that deceased Pradipkumar succumbed to the injuries on 01.12.2013 arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer employee relationship has not been disputed by the appellant. As the deceased was employee of the appellant, his monthly salary was within special knowledge of the appellant. The respondents might not have produced tangible material to show that the monthly salary was Rs. 8000/- per month. The appellant was obliged to produce on record relevant salary slip of the deceased. The respondents cannot be blamed for not adducing the evidence of monthly salary. I do not find any error of jurisdiction. 7. The factum of death was known to the appellant. It should have taken prompt steps in paying the compensation. The delay is rightly attributed to the appellant. I find no mistake in awarding interest at the rate of 12% as per the statutory provisions. 8. The appellant has not agitated any substantial question of law either in the appeal memo or during the course of arguments. In the absence of substantial question of law, appeal cannot be entertained as per Section 30 2/3 47 FA 1012 OF 2019.odt sub Section (1) of Employees Compensation Act. Appeal sans merit. It is dismissed. Award be drawn accordingly. The amount deposited shall be disbursed to the respondents with accrued interest. 9. Pending Civil Application is disposed of. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/- 3/3