An employer is liable to pay interest and penalty for the delayed payment of compensation to a workman who suffers permanent total disability due to an accident during employment.

JUDGMENT :

A.L. Vaidya, J.—Present petitioner Param Dev was working on daily wages as a Driller on muster roll with respondent No. 2. On December 21, 1990 at about 10 in the morning when the workman was working on his driller a boulder rolled down a hillock and hit the head and the neck of the petitioner resulting in causing serious injuries to him. The injured was taken to a nearby Primary Health Centre, Padhar, where he remained admitted for about 4-5 days and thereafter he was referred to District Hospital, Mandi, wherefrom he was further referred to (sic) the PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained under treatment for 2 1/2 months. According to the petitioner, he has become completeiy handicapped due to the said accident which was caused during the course of his employment and now he was not in a position to do any work. The case of the petitioner was reported to the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act') by respondent No. 2, who after recording the evidence made his award on September 7, 1991, to the tune of Rs. 87,890/. This amount was paid to the petitioner in April, 1992.

2. In the present petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the award made by the Commissioner under the Act on the following grounds :

"(1) That the learned Commissioner has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him under the Act in not awarding the interest and penalty on the awarded amount in accordance with Section 4-A, Sub-section (3) and, therefore, has committed a grave error of law.

(2) That perusal of the award itself shows, that the case was reported by respondent No. 2 to the Commissioner, therefore, it was incumbent upon respondent No. 2 to deposit the amount of compensation within one month from the date it fell due. By not doing so, respondent No. 2 was liable to pay penalty and interest for the delayed payment in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The learned Commissioner did not address himself to this very important fact of the case and passed his award by non-application of mind to the mandatory provisions of the Act.

(3) That the learned Commissioner did not take into consideration the settled proposition of law that the compensation becomes due when the accident takes place. Therefore, respondent No. 2, under the provisions of law was liable to deposit the amount of compensation within one month of the accident i.e. from December 21, 1990. It was not done in the instant case. Neither any explanation for the delayed payment was offered. In this view of the matter, it was the duty of the Commissioner under the Act to award interest and penalty. In not doing so, the learned Commissioner has transgressed the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata and Another, (1976) 1 SCC 289 and Ram Dulari Kalia v. H.P. State Electricity Board, ILR 1986 H.P 842.

(4) That the learned Commissioner also fell in error in not calculating the amount of award in accordance with law. Even the relevant factor for working out the compensation in accordance with Schedule-IV has not been applied, which has resulted in less compensation in the award of the Commissioner.

(5) That the learned Commissioner has not exercised the judicial discretion available u/s 4-A Sub-section (3) with vigilance and circumspection according to justice, common sense and sound judgment. A perusal of the award would show that the discretion has not been exercised by the Commissioner reasonably, judicially and in a just and equitable manner.

(6) That the learned Commissioner also lost sight of the fact that respondent No. 2 is not a private employer, but State itself, and, therefore, it is expected to act like a model employer while dealing with the case of a workman. It was the duty of respondent No. 2 to implement the beneficent provisions of the Act in their true letter and spirit and to make payment of the compensation as soon as it f