(1.) Both these appeals are filed challenging the order of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Ernakulam in W.C.C. No. 117 of 1993. M.F.A. No. 547 of 1997 was filed by the workman who filed application for compensation claiming enhancement of compensation. M.F.A. No. 296 of 1997 was filed by the insurance company of the employer, who was directed to pay compensation, contending that amount ordered was arbitrary violating the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Claimant workman while employed as a helper in a factory, met with an accident in the course of employment. As a result of the accident arising out of employment he lost his thumb, index and middle fingers. Employer immediately intimated the matter to the insurance company. The workman was only 22 years of age. Medical practitioner certified that he suffered 24 per cent loss of earning capacity. The workman claimed compensation for 'total disablement'. The Commissioner awarded compensation for 100 per cent loss of earning capacity accepting the case of the applicant and calculated compensation payable as Rs. 1,10,685 with 6 per cent simple interest. There was also a direction that if the amount is not paid within 30 days of the award, 50 per cent of the compensation amount also shall be realised as penalty. Since insurance was admitted, insurance company was directed to deposit the amount in court.
(2.) Facts are not disputed in these appeals by both sides. Three contentions are raised by the workman. The first contention is that Commissioner ought to have calculated the compensation at the rates applicable on the date of awarding compensation . Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), held that compensation has to be calculated as per the Schedule existing at the time of accident. Date of accident was 23.6.1993. Commissioner calculated compensation as per the Schedule existing on the date of accident as held by the Supreme Court. Hence there is no merit in this contention.
(3.) The second contention was that the Commissioner only awarded 6 per cent interest. It is true that compensation has to be calculated as per the Schedule existing at the time of accident. But payment of interest rests on a different footing. Amount of compensation was deposited only after the order of the Commissioner on 13.2.97. No compensation was paid to the workman in time despite the matter being informed by the employer to the insurance company in time and claim was given in time. Section 4-A (3) of the Act was amended and sub-sections (3) and (3-A) were substituted by Act 30 of 1995 with effect from 15.9.1995 which reads as follows: