Back
High Court Of Calcutta
SAMARESH BANERJEE, INDIRA BANERJEE
UNTIED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD - Appellant
Versus
KARTICK CHANDRA MANDAL - Respondent
F. M. A. 1146 Of 2003
Decided On : 04/04/2003
LIMITATION ACT - SECTION 5 - CONDONATION OF DELAY - WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - SECTION 4-A (3) - INTEREST ON COMPENSATION - POWER OF HIGH COURT TO DIRECT PAYMENT OF INTEREST BEYOND THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT - HELD, THE HIGH COURT HAS THE POWER TO DIRECT PAYMENT OF INTEREST BEYOND THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY SECTION 4-A (3) OF THE ACT TO AMELIORATE THE HARDSHIP SUFFERED BY THE WORKMAN.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an employer, filed an appeal against the judgment and award of the Workmens Compensation Court, which awarded compensation to the respondent, a workman, for injuries sustained in an accident that occurred on 1 July 1993. The appellant argued that the Commissioner erred in applying the amended provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, which came into force on 15 September 1995, as the accident occurred prior to that date.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Commissioner erred in applying the amended provisions of the Act, as the accident occurred prior to the amendment. The Court further held that the High Court has the power to direct payment of interest beyond the limit prescribed by section 4-A (3) of the Act to ameliorate the hardship suffered by the workman.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner erred in applying the amended provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, which came into force on 15 September 1995, as the accident occurred prior to that date? 2. Whether the High Court has the power to direct payment of interest beyond the limit prescribed by section 4-A (3) of the Act to ameliorate the hardship suffered by the workman?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Commissioner erred in applying the amended provisions of the Act, as the accident occurred prior to the amendment. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala k., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), which held that the amended provisions of the Act are not applicable to accidents that occurred prior to the amendment. 2. The Court held that the High Court has the power to direct payment of interest beyond the limit prescribed by section 4-A (3) of the Act to ameliorate the hardship suffered by the workman. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi, 1998 ACJ 1 (SC), which held that the High Court has the power to direct payment of interest beyond the limit prescribed by section 4-A (3) of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the judgment and award of the Commissioner and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for reassessment of the compensation on the basis of the Workmens Compensation Act as it stood prior to the amendment, i.e., prior to 15 September 1995. The Court also directed the Commissioner to pay interest on the compensation from the date of the application at the rate of 12% per annum.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 40 days in preferring the appeal.
( 2 ) AFTER hearing the learned advocates for both the parties and considering the application, it appears that the inability of the appellant to prefer the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation was not because of any laches or negligence on his part but because of the circumstances beyond his control. It appears to this court that the learned advocate appearing for the appellant who was dealing with the matter became sick as a result whereof he was unable to prefer the appeal within time. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.
( 3 ) THIS application is, therefore, allowed. The delay in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. Let the appeal now be registered.
( 4 ) SINCE the learned advocates for both the parties submit before us that there is a very short point involved in this appeal which can be disposed of without the trial court records, by consent of the parties the appeal itself is treated as on days list and is taken up for hearing after dispensing with all formalities.
( 5 ) THE Workmens Compensation court, after considering all aspects of the matter, has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,12,140 as compensation. The only point which has been urged by Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Commissioner fell into error in applying the provisions of the amended provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, which admittedly came into force on 15. 9. 1995 when admittedly the accident occurred prior thereto, i. e. , on 1. 7. 1993.
( 6 ) AFTER hearing the learned advocates for the parties and considering the entire aspect of the matter, it appears to us that the submission made by Mr. Das is correct.
( 7 ) ALTHOUGH the learned Commissioner has applied the amended provisions of the said Act relying upon the judgment of the kerala High Court in Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. v. Ashokan, 1998 ACJ 33 (Kerala), such decision of the Kerala High court is no longer a good law in view of the decision of the Apex Court, namely, kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala k. , 2000 ACJ 5 (SC ). In fact, a two-Judge bench of the Apex Court in case of New india Assurance Co. Ltd. v. V. K. Neelakandan, Civil Appeal Nos. 16904-16906 of 1996 took the view that the Workmens compensation Act, being a special legislation for the benefit of the workmen, the benefit as available on the date of adjudication should be extended to the workman and, therefore, the amended provisions of the Act should be extended to the workmen.
( 8 ) IN the aforesaid case of Kerala State electricity Board, 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), threejudge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the aforesaid two-Judge Bench in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , c. A. Nos. 16904-16906 of 1996, did not notice a four-Judge Bench judgment of the apex Court in the case of Pratap Narain singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC), where it was held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Such being the position of law, the question whether the amended provisions of the Act will be applicable in a case of such accident when, admittedly, the same took place even before the amended provisions came into operation is no more res integra. The judgment and award of the learned commissioner is liable to be set aside on such ground alone.
( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and award of the Workmens Compensation Court is hereby set aside. The matter is sent back to the said court for reassessment of the compensation on the basis of the Workmens Compensation Act as it stood prior to the amendment, i. e. ,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
