LAWS(KER)-2009-4-6

MANAGER Vs. ABDUL MAJEED

Decided On April 01, 2009
MANAGER Appellant
V/S
ABDUL MAJEED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company/2nd respondent before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

(2.) THE workman who had suffered employment injury in the course of and arising out of his employment had staked a claim for compensation against his employer and the Insurance Company/the appellant herein. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 81,616/- as compensation. The Commissioner, by the impugned award, directed payment of the said amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident to the date of deposit. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the decisions reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mubasir Ahmed, 2007 (3) K. L. T. 26 (SC) and the later decision of the Supreme Court reported in kamala Chaturvedi v. National Insurance Co. , 2008 (4) K. L. T. 862 (SC), contends that interest should not have been directed to be paid from the date of the accident. In Kamala Chaturvedi v. National Insurance co. , 2008 (4) K. L. T. 862 (SC), the Supreme Court had only followed the earlier decision in Mubasir Ahmed's Case.

(3.) TWO Division Benches of this Court had occasion to consider the question whether interest can be directed to be paid from the date of the accident in the light of the decision in Mubasir Ahmed's Case. Those decisions are National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha, reported in 2007 (4) K. L. T. 386 and Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs. Ashraf, reported in 2009 (1) K. L. T. 825. This Court held that in the light of the earlier binding precedents of the Larger Benches, interest can be directed to be paid not only from the date of the award, but from the date of the accident. That decision has been followed by this Court in later decisions. No other contentions are raised. We have followed the view taken by the Division benches of this Court and we are not satisfied that a different view should be taken or refer the matter to a Larger Bench.