SRI UPENDRA KAMAT Vs. SRI NARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revisional application is the order dated 14.12.2005 and 16.05.2006 whereby and whereunder learned commissioner of Workmen's Compensation Tribunal has rejected the application for awarding interest and penalty against the insurance company. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation within 60 days failing which the insurance company shall pay interest at the rate of 6 percent from the date of filing of claim case no. 354 of 1997(DC no. 101 of 2004).

(2.) Admittedly, the insurance company did not deposit the amount of compensation within stipulated period. The insurance company being opposite party no.2 however deposited amount of compensation as awarded by the tribunal but did not deposit any interest thereon.

(3.) Review application was filed for a direction upon the insurance company to deposit penalty and interest in terms of Sec. 4A(3)(a)(b) of Workmen Compensation Act, 192 The said application was rejected on 14.12.2005. Again another review application was filed and the said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the order of rejection dated 14.12.2005 and that Sec. 4A(3)(a)(b) of Workmen Compensation Act 1923 does not provide grant of interest by the insurance company but the said section clearly speaks of providing of interest and penalty by the Employer. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that Honourable Apex Court in a decision reported in 2014 (1) T.A.C 385(S.C)(Saberabibi Yakub Bhai Shaikh and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others) has directed the insurance company to pay interest at the rate of 12 percent from the date of accident. The tribunal while rejecting the application for review has relied on a decision reported in 2004 A.C.J. 452(P. J. Narayan Vs. Union of India and Ors.) It transpires from the said decision that the writ application filed by the insurance company was rejected on the ground that the insurance company shall be bound by the contract in between the parties and the insurance company is at liberty to execute such contract without the liability of payment of interest. The aforesaid decision does not decide any ratio and accordingly the tribunal has erroneously placed reliance on such decision of the Apex Court. It may safely be stated that the aforesaid decision is not at all applicable in the context of the given facts and circumstances of this case.