The court held that the liability for interest on compensation lies with the Insurance Company, affirming a statutory interest rate of 12% under the Workmen's Compensation Act if not paid within a month of adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The First Appeal is filed by the appellants – original claimants against the judgment and award dated 04.11.2008 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Ahmedabad in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 141 of 2001, whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.2,22,379/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of original claimants and also directed the United India Insurance Company respondent No.2 herein to pay penalty of Rs.55,494/- alongwith Rs.1,000/- costs.

Whereas, the Cross Objection is filed by the respondent No.1 – truck owner challenging the very same judgment and award dated 04.11.2008 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Ahmedabad in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 141 of 2001.

2. The short facts giving rise to present appeal are as under:-

2.1 The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Arjanbhai Amarsinh Chauhan. That, the deceased was working with the respondent No.1 herein as a Driver on Truck bearing registration No.GJ-18-T-103 and was drawing Rs.2,100/- p.m. That, the deceased, as per the instructions of the respondent No.1, had gone to fill the truck with gravels to Vadagam and was coming back to Ahmedabad at around 4.00 a.m. At that time, near Degmar Lake, Hansol due to a vehicle coming with full beam from the other side, the deceased had to take the truck to side and due to that, the truck collided with a tree. Due to that accident, the victim Shri Arjanbhai suffered serious injuries and succumbed to the death. For the said accident, the appellants herein filed W.C. application No.141 of 2001 before the Workmen’s Commissioner, Ahmedabad for compensation. After hearing the parties and considering the material on record, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.2,22,379/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of original claimants and also directed the United India Insurance Company respondent No.2 herein to pay penalty of Rs.55,494/- alongwith Rs.1,000/- costs.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner, the appellants – original claimants have filed the First Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensations Act, 1923 and the respondent No.1 – truck owner has filed the Cross Objection.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi, appearing for the appellants – original claimants and learned advocate Ms. Hina Desai, appearing for the respondent No.2 – United India Insurance Company Limited.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Modi has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner is erroneous, illegal and unjust and against the settled legal principles. He has submitted that the learned Commissioner has erred in granting interest @ 6% only on the amount of compensation despite the Employer failed to make the payment within one month from the date of accident. He has submitted that there is a specific provision in the Act wherein, the Employer is required to pay interest @ 12% and thus, there is a jurisdictional error committed by the learned Commissioner while awarding interest @ 6% and also the learned Commissioner has erred in not considering the penalty @ 50% and thus, it involves substantial question of law. He has further submitted that so far as the maintainability is concerned, learned Commissioner has committed a serious error of law while considering the fact that the insurance policy was under Motor Vehicles Act and not under Workmen’s Compensation Act and therefore, liability of interest is required to be fastened upon the Insurance Company and not upon the owner, which is a jurisdictional error. He has submitted that the impugned order passed by the