The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation to modify an order and the determination of interest levied, as influenced by the legal principle established in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt.Sujatha (2019 Supreme (SC) 111).

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act 1923, to set aside the award passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirappalli in E.C.No.40 of 2017 dated 02.03.2020 ( Despatched on 04.12.2020 received on 05.12.2020).)

1. Transport Corporation is the appellant herein. This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the modified order passed in E.C.No.40 of 2017, dated 02.03.2020 on the file of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants / Transport Corporation would contend that the final order has been passed on 18.12.2019 and the same was communicated to the Transport Corporation on 12.02.2020 to pay the award amount within a period of 30 days. On 10.03.2020, the award amount has been paid. However, they have received the communication from the Collectorate, calling for revenue recovery for non-payment of the amount. Hence, they made a representation to the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation Act and they came to know, by order dated 10.03.2020, that a revised order was said to have been passed on 02.03.2020. Such an order was passed on 02.03.2020 and despatched to the Transport Corporation on 04.12.2020 and received on 05.12.2020.

3. The learned counsel for the Transport Corporation would also contend that once the order has been passed, the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation Tribunal has no power either to modify or to review the order. Accordingly, the appellants prayed for setting aside the modified order, dated 02.03.2020 made in E.C.No.40 of 2017.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent / claimant.

5. On perusal of the review order, I find that, interest was awarded from the date of the order. In the modified order, it has been stated that the interest has to be given from the date of the accident. Now, the point for consideration is whether the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation has power to modify the order or not. Awarding of 12% interest from the date of the order is pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 Supreme (SC) 111 in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt.Sujatha.

6. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation that the copy of the revised order was sent to the Transport Corporation only on 04.12.2020 and received on 05.12.2020, as per the typed set filed before this Court.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants/Transport Corporation as well as the respondent, I find that the Commissioner had passed the award, dated 18.11.2019 without any interest. As per per the said order, the amount has to be deposited within one month, in default, the Transport Corporation has to pay interest at 12% per annum. The Transport Corporation has deposited the entire award amount on 10.03.2021. Thereafter, the Transport Corporation has received the notice from the ECC/JCL to pay the award amount along with the interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident as per the modified order, dated 02.03.2020.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants/Transport Corporation would state that as per the original order, the appellants deposited the entire amount. Therefore, they need not deposit the interest. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard, I find a mistake in awarding interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident. Since the first award was passed and the amount is deposited on 10.03.2021, in the interest of justice, the interest will be leviable from the date of the accident till 10.03.2021 only.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order stands modified to the extent indicated above and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.