IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 24.02.2026 FAO No.1936 of 2017 (O&M)

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Javed and another ....Respondents FAO No.6805 of 2018 (O&M)

Javed through his LRs ....Appellant Versus Pritpal Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate (through V.C.) and Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-1936-2017 and for respondent No.2 in FAO-6805-2018.

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-6805 of 2018 and for respondent No.2 in FAO-1936-2017.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM No.6343-CII of 2017 in FAO No.1936 of 2017 This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 159 days in filing the instant appeal.

Mr. Gupta pleads no objection.

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of

159 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

CM No.24068-CII of 2018 in FAO No.6805 of 2018 This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 689 days in filing the instant appeal.

Counsel representing non-applicant/respondent No.2 pleads no objection.

For the reasons recorded in the application, this Court is satisfied that the applicant/appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Consequently, the present application is allowed. The delay of

689 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

FAO No.1936 of 2017 (O&M) FAO No.6805 of 2018 (O&M)

These are two cross-appeals are directed against order dated

29.07.2016 passed by Commissioner under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1923 Act’).

2. FAO No.1936 of 2016 is at the behest of the Insurance Company. FAO No.6805 of 2018 is at the behest of the claimants.

3. Both the appellants are primarily aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner.

4. Claim petition was filed under 1923 Act seeking compensation on account of 100% permanent disability suffered by the claimant/Javed in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment, dated 31.08.2015 while being employed as a cleaner on the insured vehicle. Claimant claimed that he was employed with the owner of the vehicle on a monthly salary of Rs.8,000/- besides diet allowance of Rs.100/- per day.

5. Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company relies upon notification issued by Government of India, under Section 4(1B) of the 1923 to submit that the minimum wages notified by the Government for the purpose of Section 4 of 1923 Act are Rs.8,000/- per month. Commissioner erred in taking the monthly salary of the claimant as Rs.11,000/-. The monthly income for the purpose of Section 4 of 1923 Act, cannot be taken to be more than Rs.8,000/- as notified by Central Government. She further submits that liability to pay penalty has to be borne by the employer and not by the insurer. She further submits that the 12% interest has to be awarded from 30 days after the date of accident till the date of actual realization and not from the date of accident as awarded by the Commissioner.

6. Counsel for the appellant/claimant on the other hand submits that the applicant has been confined to bed since the date of accident on account of a spinal cord injury, yet nothing has been awarded towards future medical treatment. Mr. Gupta further submits that the liability to pay penalty has to be borne by the insurer and not by the employer.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case.

8. The accident in the present case is dated 31.08.2015. On the said date, Section 4 reads as under:

9. By dint of amendment made in 2009, explanation appended to Section 4(1), stood deleted. Prior to amendment there was a ceiling on the monthl