SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1918

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.
New India Assurance Company Ltd Through Incharge – Appellant
Versus
Modya Sukaji @ Sureshbhai Maganbhai & Ors. – Defendant
R/First Appeal No. 812 of 2012
Decided On : 21-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr K V Gadhia
For the Defendant : Mr Harshad K Patel

The insurance company is not liable for interest payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act; liability rests with the employer to pay compensation and associated interest.

Headnote:(A) Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 4, 5, and 4-A(3) - Appeal by insurance company challenging the award of Rs.2,71,656/- as compensation and the imposition of interest and penalty - Commissioner found the company liable for interest despite insurer's claim of no such liability under the policy - Court clarified that the onus of paying interest lies with the employer, not the insurer, and ruled in favor of the insurer. (Paras 4.1, 6.1, 7-14)

(B) Compensation assessment - The calculation of wages as per Section 5 of the Act is crucial for determining compensation based on the claimant's earnings, further reinforcing the proper interpretation of the law surrounding employer liability. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, an insurance company, disputes a judgment by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner granting Rs.2,71,656/- to the claimant after an employee's injury and asserting the insurer’s non-liability for interest under their policy.

Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that liability for interest should rest on the employer, clarifying that the insurer is not liable.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the liability of the insurance company for interest, and the correct interpretation of liability under the Workmen Compensation Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the insurance company is not liable for interest and emphasized that the employer must pay all related compensation liabilities, reaffirming the statutory limits of insurance agreements in Workmen's Compensation cases.

Result: Appeal allowed in part; the insurance company’s deposit for interest refunded, and liability transferred to the employer.

Table of Content
1. insurance company's challenge against the compensation order. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding liability for interest and penalty. (Para 2 , 4)
3. court's observations on liability and calculations. (Para 3 , 6 , 7)
4. conclusion and order regarding the appeal. (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT :

Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant - insurance company under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 06.01.2012 passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court, Himmatnagar in “Workmen Compensation (Non-Fatal) Case No. 3 of 2005 whereby the learned Commissioner has allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,71,656/- along with the penalty and interest.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Commissioner, the present first appeal is filed by the appellant – insurance company on the grounds that learned Commissioner has committed an error in fastening the interest and penalty upon the insurance company.

3. Heard Mr.K. V. Gadhia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – insurance company and Mr.Harshad Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondents – claimants at length.

4. Mr.Gadhia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has submitted that as per the terms of the insurance policy at Ehibit 35, the insurance company is not liable for the payment of interest and penalty and thus the learned Commissioner has committed serious error of law and facts in awarding 12% interest, which was fastened upon the appellant instead of original employer. Mr.Gadhia, learned counsel has referred to and relied upon Sections 4 read with Section 5 of the Act which provides the method of calculating the wages. Section 4 and Section 5 of the Act reads as under:-

4. Amount of compensation. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:-

(a) where death results from the injury

An amount equal to [fifty per cent.] of the monthly wages of the deceased [employee] multiplied by the relevant factor:

or

an amount of [one lakh and twenty thousand rupees], whichever is more;

(b) where permanent total disablement results from the injury

An amount equal to [sixty per cent.] of the monthly wages of the injured [employee] multiplied by the relevant factor;

or

an amount of [one lakh and forty thousand rupees], whichever is more:

[Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, enhance the amount of compensation mentioned in clauses (a) and (b).]

Explanation I. - For the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b), “relevant factor, in relation to [an employee] means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the [employee] on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due.

(c) where permanent partial disablement result from the injury

(i) in the case of an injury specified in Part II of Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury;

and

(ii) in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury;

Explanation I.-- Where more injuries than one are caused by the same accident, the amount of compensation payable under this head shall be aggregated but not so in any case as to exceed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top