The entitlement of claimants to receive interest on the compensation amount from the date of the accident and the application of established principles relating to the payment of interest on money claims.

JUDGMENT:

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity “the Act”) aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2021, passed in E.C.No.06 of 2018 by the learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Narasaraopet. (for short “the Commissioner”).

2. The Appellants herein are the applicants/claimants and the respondents herein are the Opposite Parties in E.C No.06 of 2018. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Commissioner.

3. The applicants have filed the impugned E.C.No.06 of 2018 before the Commissioner claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in respect of death of the workman Late Redya Naik, S/o Bodya Naik (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 in the course of his employment under the Opposite Party No.2. The facts of the case are that on 01.11.2016 at about 12.00 p.m. while the deceased was on duty at 13th gate of Dam gallery and at 12.30 p.m., it was informed by one Ramanji that the deceased was found unconscious on the floor at Dam gallery site and immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Macherla and the doctor confirmed that the deceased died and the same was informed to the Rentachintala P.S and thereafter a case in Crime No.96 of 2016 was registered. Postmortem was also conducted on the body of the deceased and in that report, it was clearly mentioned that the cause of death is due to “Electric Shock”. The deceased was aged 35 years and getting salary of Rs.10,500/- p.m. The applicants have issued legal notices to the Opposite parties requesting for compensation, but in vain. Hence, the present application.

4. The Opposite Party No.3 filed their counter while denying the allegations made in the application, stated that, as per the FIR, the deceased was fits patient and due to illness he frequently fells down due to fits. No ill health person be employed for labour work and there is no mention about electric shock as well as casual labour in the FIR. The Opposite Party No.2 has not submitted the name of the deceased to them and no policy was covered casual labour employees as such the application is not maintainable. It is further stated that the amount of compensation claimed by the applicants is highly excessive and without any basis. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the application filed by the applicants.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Commissioner has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the Act and he died due to personal injuries he received in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, or not, under Opposite party No.1?

2. Amount of compensation payable to the claimants?

3. Who are liable to pay the compensation?

6. During course of trial, on behalf of the applicants, AW.1 and AW.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. On behalf of the Opposite parties, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.

7. The learned Commissioner, after hearing on both sides passed an order holding that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation being the Principal Employer, Contractor and Insurer as per the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act 1923. Hence directed the parties to deposit an amount of Rs.7,64,780/- by means of Demand Draft drawn in favour of Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, Guntur on State Bank of India, Guntur within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and submit the DD in the office for further action. Challenging the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed by the applicants.

8. Heard Sri K. Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri M. Vidya Sagar, Sri T.S. Rayalu and Sri Dilip Jayaram, learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

9. On hearing, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the ord