IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the employer to pay compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, and the court's discretion to impose simple interest on the awarded amount.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. The instant First Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and award dated 30th January, 2023 passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Durgapur in Claim Case No. 3 of 2018, thereby the commissioner awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2, 90,520/-to the respondent/employee together with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 04.11.2014 till the date of actual payment thereof. Appellant has deposited total awarded amount of Rs. 5,83,945/-comprising of the principal awarded amount of Rs. 2,90,520/-and amounting to Rs. 2,93,425/-towards interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. on 04.11.2014 till 03.04.2023 with the office of Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Durgapur before filing this appeal.

2. Sans otiose details, the case of the appellant is that the respondent being the employee of the appellant had filed a compensation case under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Said Act, 1923”) to the effect that on 04.11.2014 at around 8.30 a.m. he met with an accident as a result, he sustained severe injures all over his body arising out of and in course of his employment. After the accident, he was removed to ASP Health Organisation but due to seriousness of his injuries, he was referred to DSP Main Hospital, Durgapur wherein he was treated on and from 04.11.2014 to 18.11.2014 as indoor patient. He was further referred to Peerless Hospital, Kolkata for his better treatment, wherein he was further treated as indoor patient till 23.12.2014.

3. The appellant/employer contested the case by filing written statement wherein it was admitted that the respondent was an employee of appellant’s Alloy steels plant on the date of the accident. However, the appellant denied and disputed all other averments made by the respondent. Appellant had incurred a huge medical expense for his treatment. Apart from that, the appellant had paid wages for entire period of his absence caused due to the accident till his superannuation in the month of January 2015 without any deduction as such he did not suffer any loss of his earning. Accordingly, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation under the Said Act, 1923.

4. It is further averred that the claim application was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation of two years from the date of accident as enshrined in the said Act, 1923. However, the Commissioner without applying his judicious and justifiable mind simply condoned the delay on the ground that the Act is beneficial piece of legislation. No sufficient cause/ reasons cited by the respondent in an application for condonation of delay that he was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the claim application within statutory period of limitation. The issue of limitation has been decided by the Commissioner in favour of the respondent along with other issues at the time of final adjudication of claim application is not at all permissible in the eye of law.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that all medical expenses for his treatment was borne by the appellant though there was no fault on the part of the appellant/employer but the Commissioner has imposed penalty of simple interest of 12% per annum on the awarded amount on and from the date of accident i.e. 04.11.2014 till the date of actual payment thereof.

6. It is further submitted that the respondent further failed to establish the accident which had occurred while performing his duty. Actually, he met with an accident due to his own fault while riding motor cycle at a place far away from his place of employment so it cannot be said that the accident arose out of and in course of employment. Appellant being the employer has paid all his