Claimants entitled to interest at 12% from the date of the accident under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, ensuring fairness and adherence to beneficial legislation.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment/award dated 25^th June 2024 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate-Cum-Commissioner Employees Compensation, Mayurbhanj, in E.C.Case No.3 of 2020, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.7,68,560/- has been granted on account of death of the deceased in course of his employment as a driver of car bearing Registration No.JH-O5-AK-4833.

2. Heard Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Roy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

3. The only grievance of the Appellants is that, the Commissioner while granting award did not pay the interest. The claimants being the Appellants have prayed for grant of interest from the date of accident.

4. It is true that grant of award by the Commissioner without interest thereon is grossly erroneous on the face of record. In Ajaya Kumar Das and another vrs. Divisional Manager and another , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 93, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

“5. The judgment of the High Court is inexplicable. Having dismissed the appeal of the insurer on the ground of limitation, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere on merits with the award of interest on compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. When the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the High Court could not have entertained it on merits. The error on the part of the High Court has led a labourer and his spouse to travel all the way to this Court. Though the accident took place in 2000, the course of litigation would now end only with the present judgment. To set the record straight, the High Court has erred on merits as well. Section 4A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding the lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer does not pay the compensation within one month from the date it fell due. In Saberabibi Yakubhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., this Court held that interest shall be paid on the compensation awarded from the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim in view of the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George, where it was held that compensation would fall due from the date of the accident. Further, in the recent decision in P.Meenaraj vrs. P.Adigurusamy & Anr., this Court reiterated that the applicant is entitled to interest from the date of accident while rejected the submission that the award of interest should be after the expiry of 30 days from the date of accident. Thus, there was no legal basis for the High Court to delete the order of payment of interest.

5. Further in Union of India vs. Rina Devi , 2019 (3) SCC 572 , it has been observed as follows:-

“18. The learned Amicus has referred to judgments of this Court in Raman Iron Foundry [Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231, para 11] and Kesoram Industries [Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT, (1966) 2 SCR 688, para 33 : AIR 1966 SC 1370] to submit that quantum of compensation applicable is to be as on the award of the Tribunal as the amount due is only on that day and not earlier. In Kesoram Industries [Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT, (1966) 2 SCR 688, para 33 : AIR 1966 SC 1370] , the question was when for purposes of calculating “net wealth” under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 provision for payment of tax could be treated as “debt owed” within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the said Act. This Court held that “debt” was