2025:CGHC:58292 AVINASH SHARMA NAFR AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.12.02

16:10:56 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 965 of 2022

1. Smt. Lakhmi Bai W/o Dayaprasad Aged About 47 Years.

2. Dayaprasad Son of Danu Ram Yadav, aged about 49 years.

Both R/o Bade Dhemali, Post Majhi Athgaon, Tahsil Keshkal District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimants)

... Appellants.

versus

1 - P. Senthil Kumar S/o R. Palni Yappan, Resident Of 2/226, Jamukkalan Kadu, Devankuruchi Sankri, Tahsil And District Selam (Tamilnadu). 2 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near R.M.S Office, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents.

For Appellants : Shri Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate.

For Respondent No.2 : Shri Akash Shrivastava appears on behalf of Shri RN Pusty, Advocates.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board

02/12/2025

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This Appeal preferred under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter “the Act, 1923”) was admitted for hearing on 05.09.2022 on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the court below was justified in awarding the interest on the compensation quantified contrary to the Act which envisages grant of compensation from the date the amount of compensation fell due”

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that while passing the award/judgment dated 15.12.2021, learned Commissioner had imposed condition for grant of interest on the awarded sum that after the expiry of 45 days from the date of judgment, if the amount is not deposited by the Insurer, then simple interest @ 12 % per annum shall be reckoned. He submits that the aforesaid condition of the learned Commissioner while awarding the interest on the awarded sum is contrary to the law as per Section 4-A (3) of the Act, 1923, as the same has been explained in the matter of Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata {(1976) 1 SCC 289}, in a four-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, it has been held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman in the accident which arouse out of and in the course of employment. It was accordingly held that it is the date of accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim, which is material and the same has been followed in the matter of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha {(2019) 11 SCC 514}. He lastly prays to allow the Appeal.

4. Shri Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would also not dispute the aforesaid legal proposition.

5. Section 4A of the Act, 1923 deals with the provisions with regard to the compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default. For the sake of brevity, the said Section reads thus:

“4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default.-

(1) Compensation under section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due.

(2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the employee, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the employee to make any further claim.

(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall-

(a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum or at such higher, rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon,