APHC010294382013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 662/2013 Between: The Branch Manager, The New India Ass. Co Ltd, Mahabubnagar ...APPELLANT AND Syed Rekhya Bee 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. NARESH BYRAPANENI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY 2. HARI RAO LAKKARAJU The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.M.A.No.662 of 2013 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed against the order dated 29.06.2005 in W.C.No.17 of 2003 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool. 2. Facts leading to this appeal are as under: 3. The claim application was filed by wife and children of one Syed Raffiuddin (herein after referred to as ‘deceased’) stating that the deceased was working as Driver of lorry baring No.ATT 3330 owned by O.P.No.2. On 12.08.1997 at about 2.30 a.m. while the deceased was driving the lorry, collided with a APSRTC bus baring No.APZ 3113 near Siddipet bus depot at Borelli Village within the limits of Kondapuram Police Station. The Drivers of both the vehicles died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.31 of 1997 was registered by the Kondaur Police. As the deceased was working under O.P.No.2 and earning Rs.2,000/- per month and was aged 45 years, claim application was filed seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 3 4. O.P.No.2/owner remained ex parte. O.P.No.1/Insurance Company filed its counter on its routine lines denying the employer-employee relationship, wage etc. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following issues: 1. Whether there was employer-employee relationship between deceased workman and the opposite party No.2.? 2. Whether there was an accident out of and in the course of employment of deceased workman with the Opposite Party No.2 resulting his death? 3. The exact age and wage of the applicant? 4. Whether the Opposite Party No.1 and No.2 are liable to pay compensation if payable? 6. In the course of evidence, the daughter of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Zia-ul Hussain was examined as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 to support her claim i.e. copy of F.I.R., complaint, Post Mortem report and Inquest report. On behalf of opposite parties Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked. 7. The Commissioner taking into consideration the documentary evidence held that the accident occurred during and in the course of employment and taking the age of the deceased 4 as 45 years, and wages @ Rs.1,000/- awarded compensation of Rs.1,69,040/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization making the O.P.Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. Hence, the present appeal by the Insurance company. 8. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri J.Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents. 9. The only issue that was contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the interest awarded at 12% per annum from the date of accident on the compensation amount of Rs.1,69,040/- is unsustainable. The other aspects of the claim regarding the accident, the insurance policy and the income adopted by the Commissioner are not in dispute. 10. The counsel for the Respondents contended that the interest is correctly awarded and there cannot be any flaw in the order of the Commissioner considering that the payment of compensation was intentionally delayed by the employer. 11. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court is of the opinion that Section 4-A (3) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 5 enables the Commissioner to award interest. Section 4A (3) (a) of the Act is extracted below: ‘4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.- (1) & (2) ……. (3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall— (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and…’ 12. The grant of interest as per Section 4-A (3) is from the date of compensation under the Act has “become due” and the controversy was when the compensation amount can be said to “become due” i.e. from the date of accident or from the date of adjudication. A four Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Another1 held that employer is responsible to pay compensation as soon as personal injury is caused to workman and the date of accident is the date on which amount is due and not date of adjudication 1 AIR 1976 SC 222 6 by the Commissioner. A similar view was taken in Kerala State Electricity Board and Others v. Valsala K. and Others2 by a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Without noticing the above two decisions, a contrary view was taken in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Mubasir Ahmed3 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Mohd. Nasir & Another4 holding that compensation is due from the date of order of Commissioner or from the date of claim application. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. Siby George5, this conflict of decisions was noticed and it was held that later two decisions i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Mubasir Ahmed and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Mohd. Nasir & Another (referred supra), do not lay down correct law and upheld the grant of interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident. A similar view was taken in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha6 (Paragraph 30) and in K. Sivaraman and Others v. P. Sathishkumar and Another7 (Paragraph 36). 2 1999 (8) SCC 254 3 (2007) 2 SCC 349 4 2009 (6) SCC 280 5 (2012) 12 SCC 540 6 (2019) 11 SCC 514 7 2020 (4) SCC 594 7 13. In view of the same, the award of interest cannot be faulted and this Court does not find any merit in the appeal. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As there is long delay of 22 years from the date of accident and considering the uncertain addresses of claimants, the State Legal Services Authority shall coordinate with the concerned departments and inform the claimants about the outcome of Appeal and further ensure that the compensation is paid to the claimants directly into their Aadhar linked Bank Account. Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the State Legal Services Authority. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 24.02.2025 KLP