1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.09.2004 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court, Junagadh in W.C.F. No.01/1997 whereby, the application was allowed and respondent no.1, original applicant, was awarded total compensation of Rs.2,09,920/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident till its realization. The original opponents were also directed to pay Rs.1,04,960/-, being 50% of the awarded amount, towards penalty.
2. The facts in brief are that on 27.10.1996 at about 0900 hrs. while Ismail Mamadbhai Sama was replacing the rear wheel of the Truck bearing registration No. GRX-3595 belonging to the joint ownership of respondents no.2 & 3 herein and insured with the appellant-Corporation, accidentally the ring slipped and it hit the head of Ismail Mamadbhai Sama. As a result thereof, he sustained severe injury on his head and ultimately, died during the course of treatment. His legal heirs, respondents no.1/1 to ¼ herein, original applicants, preferred the claim case under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, “the said Act”). The said claim case came to be partly allowed by way of the impugned award.
Against the said award, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard Mr. MJ Shelat learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. UM Panchal learned counsel for respondents no.1/1 to ¼. Though served none appears on behalf of respondent no.2.
4. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the deceased was not the employee of respondents no.2 & 3 since the vehicle in question was of the ownership of the father of the deceased and being the son, the deceased was only driving the vehicle and was not working as a Driver. It has been submitted that the authority below failed to appreciate the said aspect of the case and erred in holding that the deceased was the employee of respondents no.2 & 3.
4.1 It has also been contended that the authority below erred in awarding interest from the date of accident and that the liability to pay interest is on the shoulders of the employer / insured. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon an unreported decision of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.331/2008 dated 23.03.2011.
4.2 In the alternative, it has been submitted that the claimants had not produced any evidence on record to prove the income of the deceased. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the appellant that the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned counsel for respondents no.1/1 to ¼ supported the impugned award and submitted that on the date of accident, i.e. on 27.10.1996, the father of deceased was not the owner of the vehicle in question and therefore, the authority below was completely justified in passing the impugned award.
6. It is not in dispute that the accident in question took place on 27.10.1996. However, it appears from the Certificate of Registration [R.C. Book] of the vehicle that on the date of accident, the applicant was not the owner of the vehicle. Mere allegation in the FIR that the applicant is the owner of the vehicle does not change the position when the R.T.O. records prove the contrary. Hence, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is misconceived. However, so far as the issue regarding interest is concerned, I agree with the submission made on behalf of the appellant that interest ought not to have been awarded from the date of accident. In view of the recent law on the subject, interest could be awarded only from the date of award. Hence, the claimants shall be entitled for interest only from the date of award.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the authority below is modified to the extent that the original claimants shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum only from the date of award, i.e. 30.09.2004 and not from the date of accident. Rest of the impugned award remains unaltered. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent only. The excess amount shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*