Employers are liable to pay statutory interest on compensation from the date of the accident if payment is delayed, and Disability Certificates from Medical Boards take precedence over private assessments.

JUDGMENT :

S.Sounthar, J.

Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Coonoor, the appellant/claimant has come by way of this appeal.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company.

3. Since the 1^st respondent was set exparte before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, notice to the 1^st respondent was dispensed with.

4. It is the case of the appellant/workman, he was employed as a Loadman under 1^st respondent. When he was unloading cut plam trees loaded in a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 30 R 0538, he sustained injury and suffered fracture in his neck, fracture in left side ribs, fracture in right acetabulum and head injury. The workman was initially treated with first aid in Government Hospital, Andhiyur and then, he was taken to Trust Hospital, Erode and then to Ganga Medical Centre and Hospital (P) Ltd., Coimbatore. The lorry was insured with the 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company. The injured/workman was aged about 36 years on the date of accident. It was claimed by the appellant/claimant that he was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as a Loadman under the 1^st respondent. Therefore, a claim petition was filed by the appellant/claimant before the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Salem, seeking a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12%.

5. The 1^st respondent was set exparte before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner and the claim was resisted only by the 2^nd respondent-insurance company by filing counter. In the counter, the 2^nd respondent disputed the manner of accident as averred in the claim petition. The 2^nd respondent also disputed the age, income and avocation of the appellant/workman.

6. Before the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, on behalf of the appellant-workman, he was examined as PW.1. A Doctor was examined on his side as PW.2. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined. 12 documents were marked on behalf of the appellant-workman as Exs.P1 to P12. On the side of the respondents, no documents were marked. The Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ex.C1.

7. Based on the evidence available on record, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the employer and employee relationship existed between the 1^st respondent and the appellant. The Commissioner based on the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board-Ex.C1, came to the conclusion that the appellant-workman had not suffered any disability. Therefore, no amount was awarded under the head loss of earning capacity due to disability. The Commissioner directed the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.47,441/- towards medical expenses to the workman based on the medical bills produced by him and marked as Ex.P9 series. Not satisfied with the said quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, the appellant-workman has come by way of this appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant by taking this Court to Section 4 (2-A) read with Section 4-A Sub Clause (3)(a) of the Employee's Compensation Act , 1923 would submit that employer, who failed to pay the compensation to the injured-workman within 30 days from the date of accident is liable to pay statutory interest at the rate of 12% and the Commissioner committed an error in not awarding any interest as per the statute. The learned counsel further by taking this Court to the nature of injury mentioned in the Disability Certificate-Ex-P10 issued by the PW.2- Doctor, submitted that the appellant-workman suffered 54% of partial permanent disability and he is disabled from continuing his work as a Loadman and the said document was overlooked by the Commissioner.

9. Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this Court formulated the following substantial question of law