The compensation falls due upon the death of a workman, and the employer must make provisional payment without waiting for the Commissioner's determination. The employer must show sufficient cause for any delay in depositing the amount, failing which the claimant is entitled to interest and penalty as provided under S. 4-A (3) of the Act.

JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under S. 30 of the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (called shortly as 'the Act') is preferred against the order made in w. C. C. No. 6/73-74 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, madhugiri.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the appeal are these: Krishnappa,, the husband of the appellant was s cleaner in the lorry belonging ta the Public Works department of Madhugiri Division on September 13, 1967, he unlortunately met with a fatal accident. The department did not pay or deposit the compensation due to the appellant under S. 4 of the Act. On September 24, 1969 the appellant, therefore, moved the concerned authority at bangalore claiming the compensation payable to her. On October 15, 1969, the said application was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore sub-Dn. for consideration, who on october 28, 1969 sent the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur dist. for disposal. On November 3, 1969 the Deputy Commissioner in turn transmitted the application to the Assistant Commissioner, madhugiri.

( 3 ) THAT is not the end of it. The assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri, was of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. So, he forwarded that application to his counter-part at Tumkur Sub-Division. The latter took it on file and issued a notice dated March 6, 1971 under S. 12 (1) of the Act, calling upon the respondent to deposit the compensation due to the appellant. The respondent instead of complying with the demand contended that there was no liability under the Act for him to deposit the compensation and he accordingly requested the Commissioner not to proceed with the case.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the application before the Assistant commissioner, Tumkur Sub-Division, the Government issued a notification dated October 8, 1971, constituting the Assistant Commissioner under the act for Madhugiri, Pavagada, Sira and koratagere Taluks. Consequently, the said application stood transferred back to the Asst. Commissioner. Madhugiri before whom the respondent deposited rs. 7,000 on October, 5 1977 as the compensation payable to the appellant.

( 5 ) THE said Commissioner upon an enquiry and after considering material produced before him held that the amount deposited by the respondent was adequate to meet the requirements under the Act, although the appellant contended that she was entitled to interest at 6 per cent per annum in addition to a further sum by way of penalty under S. 4a (3) of the Act, since there was delay in depositing the compensation. The Commissioner, however, observed that there was justification for the respondent for not depositing the amount earlier and he accordingly declined to award the interest and penalty.

( 6 ) IN this appeal there is a two fold contention urged for the appellant. It relates to the refusal by the Commissioner to award interest and penalty provided under S. 4a (3) of the Act. Incidentally, it was also urged that the appellant was entitled to get the compensation at the rate prescribed and prevailing on the date of the deposit and not at the rate prevalent on the date of death of the workman.

( 7 ) WE may now take up the primary question for consideration. The answer to this question depends upon the date on which the compensation falls due under the Act. S. 4-A operates when there is default in paying the amount of compensation within one month from the date it fell due. It was urged by counsel for the appellant that the compensation falls due immediately upon the death of a workman and it shall be deposited within one month from that date. But, on the other hand, it was urged by the Government Advocate that the amount of compensation falls due only when it is determined by the commissioner and not until then.

( 8 ) IT seems to us that the contention urged for the respondent appears to be untenable. S. 4 (1) of the Act provides for compensation payable to workmen who have suffered different injuries. S. 4-A (1) provid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document