The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of interest on the compensation amount from the date of the accident, as interpreted under Sec. 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923.

JUDGMENT

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Sec. 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'The Act') against the impugned order dtd. 29/10/2008 in W.C. No.7 of 2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirupathi (hereinafter be referred to as "Commissioner").

2. The appellant herein was the Opposite Party No.2 and the respondents herein were the applicants and Opposite Party No.1 before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed before the learned Commissioner.

3. Case of the applicants in brief is that the deceased V.Venkata Ramana is the son of the first applicant and applicants 2 & 3 are the brothers of the deceased. He worked as lorry cleaner under the O.P.No.1 and on his instruction, on 26/10/2006 at 9.00 PM, he along with lorry driver Chandra Mouli, left from Rajampet with load of Banana to Tadipatri and when they reached near Palempalli petrol bunk bypass road, the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a high speed and dashed to the rear side of a stationed tipper. Both driver and cleaner died in the said accident.

4. Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 admitted that the applicant was working under O.P.No.1 as cleaner and the O.P.No.2 i.e. Insurer alone is liable to pay compensation to the applicant. O.P.No.2 denied the employee employer relationship in between the deceased and Opposite Party No.1 and the compensation claimed by the applicants are excessive and hence requested for dismissal of the case.

5. Issues - Enquiry - Finding:

a. Basing on the rival pleadings of both sides, the learned Commissioner framed the following issues for adjudication;

i. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of workmen's compensation Act 1923 and he met with an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into death?

ii. What is the age of deceased at the time of accident ?

iii. What were the wages paid to the deceased at the time of accidental death ?

iv. What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicants?

v. Who are liable to pay the compensation to the applicants?

b. During the course of enquiry, the 1st applicant/ mother of the deceased V.Munemma was examined as AW.1. Exs.A1 to A6 were the documents marked. On behalf of O.P.No.2, no evidence is adduced.

c. After hearing both the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner concluded that both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to deposit an amount of Rs.3, 37, 202.00 as compensation besides stamp duty of Rs.674.00 along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of payment of compensation or realisation by means of demand draft drawn in favour of the Commissioner within 30 days of receipt of the order, failing which, they have to pay penalty u/s.4(A)3 of the W.C. Act.

6. Grounds of Apeal:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order impugned, the Opposite Party No.2 preferred the present appeal on the following grounds;

i. The award of the Commissioner is illegal, contrary to law and facts, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

ii. The Commissioner erred in awarding interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the accident will the actual payment or realization.

iii. The award of the Commissioner is unsustainable to the extent of awarding interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the accident, which is contrary to the settled principles of law.

Substantial question of Law:

7. Heard. The only point raised in the appeal against the impugned order is Whether the Commissioner can grant interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident or not?

POINT

8. The law on this point is no more res-integra. In Saberabibi Yakubhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd, (2014) 2 SCC 298. where the matter was carried in Appeal to the Hon'ble Apex Court placing reliance on Oriental Insurance Company Limite