JUDGMENT :

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Award dated 08.10.2013 made in W.C.No.379/2009 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II) Chennai.

2. The son of the appellants, namely, Alex Pandian, aged about 18 years, was engaged by the first respondent as Cleaner of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-02-AA-9132 and while he was on duty on 12.06.2009 at 3.30 a.m., the said vehicle met with an accident near Guduvancherry Bus Stand by dashing against a parked Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-37-A-3733, as a result, the son of the appellant died on the spot. Therefore, the appellants, being parents of the deceased filed the claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour- II, Chennai in W.C.No.379 of 2009 claiming compensation on the ground that the accident occurred during the course of his employment and the said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent Insurance Company. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai passed an award on 08.10.2013 directing the second respondent Insurance company, being the insurer of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-02-AA-9132 owned by the first respondent, to deposit the compensation of Rs.4,59,580/-, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the award, failing which the second respondent is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation amount after 30 days from the date of accident till the date of deposit. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed.

3. Today, it is represented by both sides that there is no dispute in respect of the quantum of award and the only substantial question of law arises for consideration is as to whether the learned Commissioner committed error in not granting interest of 12% on award amount in terms of Section 4-A(3)(a) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923?

4. This substantial question of law raised in this appeal as to what is the actual date for accrual of interest on the compensation arrived at under the Employees Compensation Act, whether it falls due after thirty days from the date of accident or only after thirty days from the date of determination/adjudication of the compensation/claim is no longer res integra. It has already been considered and decided by this Court by following the two decisions, one decided by the Apex Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and another, (1976) 1 SCC 289 and another decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of N.Ganesan v. Thilagavathi and others, 2010 (2) TN MAC 80 (DB). The Larger Bench of the Apex Court, way back in the year 1976, has held that the employer became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of the employment. Following the aforesaid Larger Bench decision of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo's case (cited supra), a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of N.Ganesan v. Thilagavathi and others, 2010 (2) TN MAC 80, has held as follows:-

“20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in Pratap Narain Singh Deo’s case, 1976 (1) SCC 829 (Four Judges Bench), has specifically formulated an issue and held that “ The employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of the employment. It is therefore futile to contend that the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioner’s order dated 6.5.1969 under Section 19.”

21. In Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others, 1998 ACJ 1 (SC) (Two Judges Bench) the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was not drawn to the Pratap Narain Singh Deo’s case. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the facts of the said case, held that “ the Respondent- Insuran