High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Allows Insurance Company's Appeal Against Penalty, Enhances Interest to 12% in Workmen's Compensation Case. Penalty Cannot Be Imposed on Insurer Under Section 4A of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923; Interest Rate of 12% Applicable for 1999 Accident.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 17
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case arises from a motor accident that occurred in 1999, resulting in a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation & Labour Court passed an order on 17.10.2002 in W.C. (Application) No. 52/1999, awarding compensation along with penalty and interest. The United India Insurance Company, the appellant, challenged the order on the ground that the penalty was wrongly fastened on it. The respondents-claimants filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of interest from 6% to 12% per annum. The substantial questions of law were whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay penalty and whether the interest rate should be 12% for an accident in 1999. The appellant's counsel argued that penalty cannot be imposed on the insurer, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and others (AIR 1997 SC 3854). The respondents' counsel contended that the interest awarded at 6% was contrary to law and should be 12%. The court held that the penalty is payable by the owner, not the Insurance Company, following the precedent in Ved Prakash Garg. Regarding interest, the court noted that for accidents occurring in 1999, the applicable rate is 12% per annum as per the amended Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, modifying the order to delete the penalty imposed on the Insurance Company, and the cross-objections were allowed, enhancing the interest rate to 12% per annum from the date of accident until realization.

Headnote

A) Workmen's Compensation - Penalty - Liability of Insurance Company - Section 4A, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - The Insurance Company is not liable to pay penalty imposed under Section 4A for delayed payment of compensation; penalty is payable by the employer/owner. (Paras 2, 5, 8)

B) Workmen's Compensation - Interest - Rate of Interest - Section 4A, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - For an accident that occurred in 1999, the interest payable on compensation is at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident until realization. (Paras 3, 6, 9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay penalty under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and whether the interest payable should be at the rate of 12% for an accident that took place in 1999.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal partly allowed. The order of the Commissioner is modified to delete the penalty imposed on the Insurance Company. Cross-objections allowed. Interest awarded at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident until realization.

Law Points

  • Insurance company not liable for penalty under Workmen's Compensation Act
  • 1923
  • Interest rate of 12% per annum applicable for accident in 1999
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2018 LawText (BOM) (08) 58

First Appeal No. 416 of 2005

2018-08-02

A. M. Dhavale, J.

Mr S. V. Kulkarni for appellant, Mr D. K. Dagadkhair for respondents No. 1 and 2, Ms A. N. Ansari for respondent No. 3

The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Sitaram S/o. Sheshrao Mete, Sou. Laxmibai W/o. Sitaram Mete, Yusuf Khan S/o Mehtabkhan, Mohd. Moinuddin S/o. Mohd. Jainuddin

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order of Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation & Labour Court regarding penalty and interest.

Remedy Sought

Insurance Company sought deletion of penalty; claimants sought enhancement of interest.

Filing Reason

Insurance Company challenged imposition of penalty; claimants cross-objected for higher interest.

Previous Decisions

Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation & Labour Court order dated 17.10.2002 in W.C. (Application) No. 52/1999.

Issues

Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay penalty under Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Whether the interest payable should be at the rate of 12% for an accident that took place in 1999.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant (Insurance Company): Penalty cannot be fastened on Insurance Company; relies on Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi. Respondents (Claimants): Interest awarded at 6% is contrary to law; should be 12%.

Ratio Decidendi

Penalty under Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is payable by the owner, not the Insurance Company. Interest at 12% per annum is applicable for accidents occurring in 1999.

Judgment Excerpts

The judgment referred to above in the case of Ved Prakash (supra) is very clear. The penalty is payable by the owner. The substantial question of law is, whether the interest payable would be at the rate of 12% in respect of accident taken place in the year 1999.

Procedural History

The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation & Labour Court passed an order on 17.10.2002 in W.C. (Application) No. 52/1999. The Insurance Company filed First Appeal No. 416 of 2005 challenging the penalty. The claimants filed cross-objections for enhancement of interest. The appeal was dismissed against respondent No. 4 as per Registrar's order dated 31.01.2006. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 02.08.2018.

Acts & Sections

  • Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: Section 4A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Allows Insurance Company's Appeal Against Penalty, Enhances Interest to 12% in Workmen's Compensation Case. Penalty Cannot Be Imposed on Insurer Under Section 4A of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923; Interest Rate of...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction for Murder and Robbery Based on Circumstantial Evidence and Last Seen Theory. Appellant convicted under Sections 302, 392, 397 IPC for killing a labourer and robbing him, with conviction affirmed on appeal.