HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD Vs. ASHRAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The employer is the appellant. The first respondent was the applicant. The second respondent was the Sub Contractor, who engaged the applicant and the third respondent is the insurer. The first respondent while working under the second respondent, who was the Sub Contractor for the appellant, suffered certain injuries resulting in cent percent permanent disability. The first respondent moved the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The said authority awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,39,380/- with 12% interest from November 24, 1999, the date of accident. The award was passed on September 20, 2002, with a direction to pay the amount within one month. The appellant challenges the said award on two grounds. The first ground is that the insurer is liable to pay the interest also. The second point is that the interest was liable to be awarded only from the date, the award became enforcible, that is, 30 days after September 20, 2002.

(2.) The first point raised by the appellant is covered against it by the decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya and Anr., 2006 5 SCC 192. The second point raised by the appellant is covered against it by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Sriniwas Sabata and Anr., 1976 1 SCC 289. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows at p.237 of LLJ:

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant brought to our notice a recent decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and Anr., 2007 1 LLJ 1035, wherein it was held that interest is payable only from the date of the award. It is a decision rendered by a Bench of two Judges. The above apparent conflict between the two decisions of the Apex Court has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rekha,2008 2 LLJ 137 (Ker-NOC) and held that this Court is bound by the decision of the Constitution Bench. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in that case. So, the second contention of the appellant also cannot be accepted.