Interest should be calculated from the date of the accident, and the Khoraki amount should be included in the compensation, as per the Employee's Compensation Act and relevant legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. D.C. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.5 and 6/Insurance company.

2. The notice upon the respondent nos.1 to 4 have been validly served, however, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to

3. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment/award dated 08.10.2013 passed in W.C. Case No.62 of 2011 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar.

4. The claim application was filed stating therein that on 11.03.2008 Etwari Rai, Chhoti Mahto, Seva Roy, Nunman Roy, Narayan Mahto, Sakaldeo Prasad Yadav were workmen under the instruction of their employer Rameshwar Prasad Yadav and others, O.P.No.1 to 4 were working. They used to help the employer in agricultural work and also other work. On the fateful day all the workmen loaded cements, iron rods etc. of the employer for the purposes of construction of a well in the agricultural land in village Ghanghari –Kurha, P.S. Tisri, District Giridih. At about 9.30 P.M. on 11.3.2009 the tractor with trailor bearing No.BR-23A-2006 and BR-23A-2007 reached in Ambaghati on Ghangari-Kurha-Doranda Main Road under P.S. Tisri, District Giridih and it turned turtle with the loaded articles and all the above six workmen died on the spot from injuries. O.P.No.3 Satrudhan Prasad Yadav was driving the vehicle at that time. Tisri P.S. Case No.514 of 2008 under section 279, 337, 338, 304 (A) of IPC was registered on 12.03.2008 on the statements of Guru Sahay Mahto. The police was investigated the matter and submitted the charge-sheet.

5. On these pleadings, the notices were issued. The learned court after considering the evidences on record has been pleased to direct to pay a sum of Rs.3,39,000/- in favour of the claimants against the insurance company payable within a period of 30 days from the date of the award. It was further ordered that if the amount is not paid within the given time period, the insurance company will also be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of payment.

6. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellants submits that this appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation on the ground that interest has been provided from the date of award, whereas it should be from the date of accident in light of Section 4A(3)(a)(b) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. He further submits that this aspect of the matter has been recently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Meenaraj v. P. Adigurusamy and another; (2022 ACJ 1001).

7. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 10 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:

“4. The relevant background aspects are that on 29.05.2010, the appellant, being an employee (driver) of the 1st respondent, suffered injuries in the course of employment and made a claim for compensation by way of Claim Petition No. 549 of 2010 under Section 10 of the Employees” Compensation Act, 1923, before the Commissioner concerned, who awarded a sum of Rs. 4,76,898/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy-Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Eight) as compensation to the appellant with a direction to the 2nd respondent/insurer to deposit/pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which, to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. after the expiry of 30 days from the date of accident.

5. It appears that before the High Court, the only question raised on behalf of the appellant was as to the date from which interest fell due, as specifically noticed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the impugned judgment. The High Court referred to an earlier decision of that Court in the case of M. Rajamanickam v. G. Shivasankar and Anr. (C.M.A. No. 166 of 2014) wherein, with reference to a decision of this Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr.: AIR 1976 SC 222, the High Court had held that in such compensation cases, if the compensation is not paid within the statutory