The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 has no discretion to award interest at a rate less than the minimum statutory interest prescribed under Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Act and must award interest from one month after the date of the accident.

Judgment

This appeal by the United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the insurer”) filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act”) is directed against award dated 15th January, 2018 passed by the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu), whereby the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants”) has been allowed and a sum of Rs.6,77,760/- along with interest to the tune of Rs.1,82,142/- has been awarded to the claimants.

2. The appellant in its memo of appeal has proposed many substantial questions of law, however, after going through the facts of the case and the nature of controversy raised in the appeal, I am of the view that following substantial questions of law arise for determination in this appeal:-

i) Whether in the absence of any evidence regarding stress and strain and in the absence of causal connection between death and his employment, the Commissioner could have fixed the liability upon the employer and directed the insurer to pay the compensation in indemnification of the insured?

ii) Whether the death of the deceased, in light of the evidence on record, can be said to have taken place due to the accident occurred during and in the course of his employment?

3. The claimants have also filed their cross objections, the maintainability whereof has been vehemently opposed by the appellant- insurer. In view of the objection taken by the appellant to the maintainability of the cross-objections, I am of the view that following question too is a substantial question of law, which would require determination in this appeal and cross-objections:-

iii) Whether cross objections by the respondents in an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Act are maintainable?

4. Before appreciating the substantial questions of law formulated herein above, few facts, bare necessary, deserve to be adverted to: The case of the claimants, as pleaded before the Commissioner, in a nutshell, is that the deceased-Gian Singh, the husband of claimant No.1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (both minors) was driver by profession and was engaged by respondent No.4 for driving vehicle bearing Registration No.JK02V-3256 (truck). On 07.04.2013, the deceased after loading the vehicle with steel set out for a journey from Jammu to Srinagar. On 09.04.2013, when the deceased reached at Dig Dole and was on his way to Srinagar, all of a sudden he suffered medical complications owing to which he parked his vehicle on the road side. In the meanwhile, some persons looking to the medical condition of the deceased shifted him to the District Hospital, Ramban for medical treatment. The deceased reached Ramban Hospital but was declared dead on arrival. The claimants alleging that the accident in which the deceased lost his life had happened during and in the course of employment with respondent No.4, filed a claim petition before the Commissioner. A report with regard to the incident/accident was also registered with the Police Station, Ramban. Before the Commissioner the claimants asserted that the deceased at the time of accident/incident was getting monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- from his employer and was about 45 years of age. They also contended before the Commissioner that they tried their best to settle the dispute with the appellant and respondent No.4 but they both showed complete reluctance and denied them the due compensation. Along with claim application, the claimants also placed on record the copies of police report, autopsy report and driving license of the deceased driver. Copy of registration certificate of the vehicle and the insurance policy too were placed on record. On being put on notice, the appellant-insurer appeared before the Commissioner and contested the claim by filing written objections. Respondent No.4 also responded to the notice and appeared before the Commissioner through his c