AJAYA KUMAR DAS & ANR versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER & ANR

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 468 · Decided: 24-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 468
468
AJAYA KUMAR DAS & ANR
v.
DIVISIONAL MANAGER & ANR
(Civil Appeal No. 447 of 2022)
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
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
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/-
– 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
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.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
does not pay the compensation within one month from the date it
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
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.
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
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
: [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
[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
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.
AJAYA KUMAR DAS v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
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
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
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.