Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010008152010 2026:GAU-AS:1153 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MFA/260/2010 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA 700071 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-781005, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI. VERSUS MD. WAHID ALI and ANR. S/O LATE BASIRUDDIN, R/O VILL. KHAIRABARI, P.O. and P.S. BARPETA ROAD, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM. 2:KHANINDRA KAKATI S/O SADANANDA KAKATI R/O VILL. DURAMARI PS. SORBHOG DIST. BARPETA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MISS.S ROY, MR.B C DAS Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 19.02.2026 1. Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Hassan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal under Section 30 of the W.C. Act, 1923, has been preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 20.08.2007 passed in W.C.Case No. 5 of 2004 by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Dhubri awarding a sum of Rs. 1,66,554.00 including interest. 3. The present respondents/claimants had instituted a case being W.C. Case No. 5 of 2004 before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Dhubri, seeking compensation on account of personal injuries caused to the claimant in course of his employment. 4. The case in brief is that the claimant Md. Wahid Ali was employed as labour under the Opposite Party No.1, the owner of the vehicle No. AP- 1109 (Truck). On 10-04-2002 while the vehicle proceeded from domni Kowari towards Barpeta Road the vehicle met with an accident at Katazar due to sudden failure of main spring. As a result the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was first treated at Barpeta Road Public Health Centre after that he was referred to Barpeta Civil Hospital for better treatment, but he is not cured and remain disabled since the date of accident. A case was registered vide G. D. E. NO.314, dtd. 10-04-2002 under Barpeta Road Police Station. He earned Rs.3000/- per month as salary and his age was 30 years at the relevant time of accident. The Page No.# 3/6 employer had knowledge of accident but he did not get any compensation from the Opposite Parties. Further the petitioner stated that the vehicle was insured with the O.P.NO.2 & 3, National Insurance Co.Ltd.bearing Policy No.2001/6300571 (New) and was valid at the relevant period and the petitioner further stated that he submitted all the relevant documents to substantiate his claim. Due to unemployment, he is facing acute financial hardship with family and demanded due compensation as per rule. 5. The opposite parties, including the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company submitted written statements and upon consideration of the same, the learned Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation passed the impugned Award, awarding the compensation of Rs. 1,12,309/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of the accident, which occurred on 10.04.2002, amounting to Rs. 54,245/- and the total amount of compensation was computed as Rs. 1,66,554/-. 6. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been instituted by the Insurance Company. The substantial question of law formulated at the time of admission of the appeal is as follows:- “Whether the learned Commission was justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant Company to pay interest on the awarded amount from the date of accident” 7. The learned counsel for the appellants/Insurance Company has submitted that undisputedly, the injuries sustained by the claimant/respondent is a non-schedule injury and in this regard, the learned counsel referred to Page No.# 4/6 the Section 4 A of the Employee’s Compensation Act, which reads as follows:- “[4a. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default- (1) Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (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 maximum of the leading rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (b)……. [(3A)……” 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed before the Court the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and Another, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 349, wherein it has been held as follows:- “Interest is payable under Section 4-A(3) if there is default in paying Page No.# 5/6 the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due. The question of liability under Section 4-A was dealt with by this Court in Maghar Singh v. Jashwant Singh¹. By amending Act 30 of 1995, Section 4-A of the Act was amended, inter alia, fixing the minimum rate of interest to f be simple interest @ 12%. In the instant case, the accident took place after the amendment and, therefore, the rate of 12% as fixed by the High Court cannot be faulted. But the period as fixed by it is wrong. The starting point is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due. Obviously it cannot be the date of accident. Since no indication is there as to when it becomes due, it has to be taken to be the date of adjudication of the claim. g This appears to be so because Section 4-A(1) prescribes that compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. The compensation becomes due on the basis of adjudication of the claim made. The adjudication under Section 4 in some cases involves the assessment of loss of earning capacity by a qualified medical practitioner. Unless adjudication is done, question of compensation becoming due does not arise. The position becomes clearer on a reading of sub-section (2) of Section 4-A. It provides that provisional payment to the extent of admitted liability has to be made when employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed. The crucial expression is “falls due”. Significantly, legislature has not used the expression “from the date of accident”. Unless there is an adjudication, the question of an amount falling due does not arise.” Page No.# 6/6 9. The learned Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation had referred to certain decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the impugned Judgment, but none of the said decisions are on the point as to the date from which the interest on compensation would become due. 10. Having regard to the above, the substantial question of law formulated above is answered by holding that the employer/insurance is not liable to pay interest on the compensation from the date of the accident, but rather the starting point is on completion of one month from the date on which the award was made. 11. Having regard to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mubasir Ahmed and Another (Supra), the appellant is therefore directed to calculate the interest payable accordingly and since the compensation awarded minus the interest part has already be deposited, the Appellant, Insurance Company is now directed to re-calculate the interest in the light of the above, and pay the same to the respondents/claimants within a period of 3 (three) months from today. 12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant