IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4849 of 2010 ==========================================================

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Versus DEPENDANTS OF BHUPATBHAI UKABHAI GITABEN BHUPATBHAI GHODASA & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR N P PANDYA(11241) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 12/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1. The solitary issue involved in the matter is that whether the Workmen Commissioner can grant the interest from the date of the accident or from the date of the petition.

2. The Appeal is a Admitted vide order dated 29.12.2010. No substantial question in view of Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 was framed at the relevant time. Thus, aforesaid question of law fixed as a substantial question of law.

2.1 The brief factual aspects are that the dependents of the deceased Bhupatbhat Ukabhai filed a W.C application (fatal) No. 5 of 2007 before the Workmen Commissioner, Amreli interalia on the averments that on 16.03.2007, the deceased came to Amreli along with Gabha Naja, Uka Dana and Pravin Bhihabjai and on instructions of Mansukhbhai Parshotambh Kabria, he went to Motirala Village to load the cotton bags. The truck trolley was driven by Salimbhai Kadri. After loading the cotton bag, the truck was passing through Amreli bus stand, the deceased and Pravinbhai Ukabhai were on the top of the cotton bags and two other labourers were sitting in the cabin of the truck. The hanging loose wire on the rope came in contact with the truck/lorry and also came in contact with the deceased due to which he fell on the road and died within 2 or 3 hours of the electrocution. The workmen was working on for Rs. 125 per day. Upon this averments of the workmen, W.C application was filed before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, permitting both the parties to lead the evidence. The application came to be allowed in a tune of award of Rs. 3,89,962/- with 12% simple interest on the amount of compensation from the date of the accident till the deposit of the amount along with the direction to deposit the amount of penalty at 2% of compensation from 30 days from the date of the application.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rituraj Meena appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. None remained present from the otherside despite being served.

4. The issue which is raised by the appellant and this Court is called to decide, is no more res integra. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha [AIR 2018 SC 5593], paras 20, 23, 24, 25 and 30, The Supreme Court observed as under :-

20 The grant of interest on the awarded sum is governed by Section 4-A of the Act. The question as to when does the payment of compensation under the Act "becomes due" and consequently what is the point of time from which interest on such amount is payable as provided under Section 4-A (3) of the Act remains no more res integra and is settled by the two decisions of this Court “23. After these two decisions, this Court in two cases (both by the two Judge Bench) viz. National Insurance Company Ltd v. Mubasir Ahmed & Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 349: (AIR 2007 SC 1208) and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohmad Nasir & Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 280: (2009 AIR SCW 3717) without noticing the law laid down in Pratap Narain (AIR 1976 SC 222) and Valsala cases (AIR 1999 SC 3502) (supra) took a contrary view and held that payment of compensation would fall due only after the Commissioner's order or with reference to the date on which the claim application is made.

24. This conflict of view in the decisions on the question was noticed by this Court (two Judge Bench) in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Siby George and others (2012) 12 SCC 5