AJAYA KUMAR DAS & ANRversusDIVISIONAL MANAGER & ANR

468                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    1 S.C.R. 468              [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A                       AJAYA KUMAR DAS & ANR
                                       v.
                      DIVISIONAL MANAGER & ANR
                         (Civil Appeal No. 447 of 2022)
B                             JANUARY 24, 2022
              [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                     DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
            Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923: s. 4A – Award of interest
      on compensation to labourer who sufferred permanent disability
C
      upto 85% – Appeal thereagainst by insurer – High Court having
      dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation directed that the
      claimant are not entitled to any interest on the compensation awarded
      except the accrued interest – On appeal, held: Judgment of the
      High Court is inexplicable – Having dismissed the appeal of the
D     insurer on the ground of limitation, there was no occasion for the
      High Court to interfere on merits with the award of interest on
      compensation – Error on the part of the High Court has led a
      labourer and his spouse to travel all the way to this Court – Thus,
      in addition to the compensation and interest which have been
      awarded, the appellants entitled to costs quantified at Rs 50,000/-
E
      – Costs.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 The judgment of the High Court is inexplicable.
      Having dismissed the appeal of the insurer on the ground of
F     limitation, there was no occasion for the High Court to interfere
      on merits with the award of interest on compensation under the
      Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923. The error on the part of
      the High Court has led a labourer and his spouse to travel all the
      way to this Court. Though the accident took place in 2000, the
      course of litigation would now end only with the present judgment.
G     The High Court has erred on merits as well. Section 4A of the
      1923 Act stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct the
      employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding
      the lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer

H
                                      468
           AJAYA KUMAR DAS v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER                       469


does not pay the compensation within one month from the date it        A
fell due. Interest shall be paid on the compensation awarded from
the date of the accident. Thus, there was no legal basis for the
High Court to delete the order of payment of interest, and the
said direction is set aside. The order for the payment of interest
by the Commissioner together with the award of compensation
                                                                       B
is restored. [Paras 5, 6][470-G-H; 471-A-B, D-F]
      1.2 Though the first respondent has not appeared in these
proceedings, despite service of notice, an award of costs is
necessary since the appellants have been compelled to move
this Court against a palpably erroneous order of the High Court
passed in an appeal filed beyond limitation by the respondent.         C
The insurer took the contest to the High Court in an appeal barred
by limitation. A well-resourced insurance company has used its
position of dominance to evade the cause of justice. Such
strategies must be eschewed. In addition to the compensation
and interest which have been awarded, the appellants would be          D
entitled to costs quantified at Rs 50,000. [Para 7][471-F-G;
472-A]
        Saberabibi Yakubhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Co.
        Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 298 : [2014] (1) SCR 303; Oriental
        Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George (2012) 12 SCC 540            E
        : [2012] (6) SCR 1079; P. Meenaraj v. P. Adigurusamy
        & Anr. Civil Appeal No 209 of 2022, decided on 6
        January 2022 – referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
[2014] (1) SCR 303             referred to            Para 5           F
[2012] (6) SCR 1079            referred to            Para 5
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 447 of
2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 08.02.2019 of the High Court   G
of Orissa at Cuttack in Review Petition No.84 of 2018.
     Chitta Ranjan Mishra, Neeraj Srivastava, Ronak Baid, Ms. Neetu
Rathore, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.

                                                                       H
470            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
            1. Leave granted.
            2. This appeal arises from a judgment of a Single Judge of the
B     High Court of Orissa dated 11 April 2018 in FAO No 358 of 2018.
             3. The first appellant was working as a labourer in a truck bearing
      registration No OAX 2764 and was engaged by the second respondent
      for the loading and unloading of sand. On 5 June 2000, the truck met
      with an accident as a result of which the first appellant suffered multiple
C     injuries in his abdomen and kidney. He underwent a surgery and was
      discharged from the hospital on 22 June 2000. A claim for compensation
      was lodged before the Workmen compensation-cum-Assistant Labour
      Commissioner, Odisha. The claim was allowed by an order dated 24
      May 2016. It was held that the first appellant in spite of all the possible
      treatment became permanently disabled upto 85% which would reduce
D     his earning capacity upto 100%. Since he was receiving Rs 2100 as a
      monthly income, the total compensation payable was arrived at Rs
      2,78,926 (60% of 2100 (monthly income) x 221.37 (age factor as he was
      22 years old) x 100 (loss of earning)). The Labour Commissioner directed
      that the compensation must be paid together with interest at the rate of
E     12 per cent per annum on the principal sum awarded from the date of
      accident till the deposit.
             4. The first respondent, who is the insurer, filed an appeal before
      the High Court, being FAO No 358 of 2018, with a delay of 619 days.
      The High Court, by its order dated 11 April 2018, dismissed the application
F     for condonation on the ground that there was an unexplained delay of
      619 days. Nonetheless, the High Court directed that the appellants are
      not entitled to any interest on the compensation awarded except the
      accrued interest. The order of the High Court was sought to be reviewed,
      but the petition for review was also dismissed on 8 February 2019 on the
      ground that the first appellant has already withdrawn the entire awarded
G     amount along with the accrued interest.
             5. The judgment of the High Court is inexplicable. Having
      dismissed the appeal of the insurer on the ground of limitation, there was
      no occasion for the High Court to interfere on merits with the award of
      interest on compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923.
H     When the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the High
            AJAYA KUMAR DAS v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER                               471
              [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Court could not have entertained it on merits. The error on the part of         A
the High Court has led a labourer and his spouse to travel all the way to
this Court. Though the accident took place in 2000, the course of litigation
would now end only with the present judgment. To set the record straight,
the High Court has erred on merits as well. Section 4A of the Workmen’s
Compensation Act 1923 stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct
                                                                                B
the employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding
the lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer does
not pay the compensation within one month from the date it fell due. In
Saberabibi Yakubhai Shaikh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.1, this
Court held that interest shall be paid on the compensation awarded from
the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim in       C
view of the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Siby George2 where it was held that compensation would fall due from
the date of the accident. Further, in the recent decision in P. Meenaraj
v. P. Adigurusamy & Anr.3, this Court reiterated that the applicant is
entitled to interest from the date of accident while rejecting the submission
                                                                                D
that the award of interest should be after the expiry of 30 days from the
date of accident. Thus, there was no legal basis for the High Court to
delete the order of payment of interest.
       6. For the above reasons, we set aside the direction contained in
the order of the High Court dated 11 April 2018 by which the order for
the payment of interest was deleted. The order for the payment of interest      E
which was issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner-cum-
Commissioner, Workmen Compensation shall together with the award
of compensation stand restored.
       7. Though the first respondent has not appeared in these
proceedings, despite service of notice, we are of the view that an award        F
of costs is necessary since the appellants have been compelled to move
this Court against a palpably erroneous order of the High Court passed
in an appeal filed beyond limitation by the respondent. The insurer took
the contest to the High Court in an appeal barred by limitation. A well-
resourced insurance company has used its position of dominance to evade         G
the cause of justice. Such strategies must be eschewed. In addition to
the compensation and interest which have been awarded, the appellants
1
  (2014) 2 SCC 298
2
  (2012) 12 SCC 540
3
  Civil Appeal No 209 of 2022, decided on 6 January 2022                        H
472                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 1 S.C.R.


A     shall be entitled to costs quantified at Rs 50,000 which shall be paid over
      within a period of four weeks, together with the component of the award
      inclusive of interest that remains to be paid.
              8. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
              9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
B

      Nidhi Jain                                                    Appeal allowed.




C




D




E




F




G




H