NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PREMA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel. Review is prayed of the order dated March 25, 1991 passed by me in Misc. Appeal No. 118 of 1987. However, the review being obviously a discretional jurisdiction, I thought it proper and legitimate to examine the grounds of review in juxtaposition with the order and also reminded myself of the settled law that review jurisdiction should not be lightly exercised as per Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India. (1981-II-LLJ-405) (SC ). Only where there is a case of substantial injustice occurring on account of the relevant order or law is applied perversely to reach a perverse conclusion and result, review is allowed.

(2.) WHAT I found reading the review petition is that award of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum only has been challenged. It is true that interest was awarded at the rate of 12 per bent per annum and it is equally true that claim was preferred under the Workmen's Compensation Act and decided as well under that Act. On facts too i find that provisions of that Act exclusively and conclusively apply and there is no scope in any manner for the application of any provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, new or old.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the question was whether the deceased was a 'workman' who died in an accident during the course of employment and that question in appeal being decided in appellants-claimants' favour award was passed by this Court reversing the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Court. Unfortunately, my attention was not drawn to the statutory provision of the Act, Section 4-A which has specified the rate of interest, i. e. , "simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum". I do not think if there can be any scope in view of the statutory fetters on discretion of this Court to allow interest at the rate of 12 per cent still that had been done in this case. Mr. Haswani submitted that there is a decision of this Court though he is not able today to cite that. But, in my view, the statutory provision being clear I do not think I have to postpone further hearing of this appeal to allow the counsel to address me and cite that decision. Indeed, facts of that case may be different, a case which, though of an employer, if decided under Motor Vehicles Act, may attract provisions of that Act and under that Act, discretion vests in the Tribunal/court to award any reasonable interest. That position does not obtain under the Workmen's Compensation Act and Court's discretion is specifically circumscribed in the manner aforesaid.