1. The appellant-original opponent, S.T. Corporation has challenged the judgment/award dated 4.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation and Judge, Himatnagar in Workmen’s Compensation Application No.17 of 2003 filed by the injured opponent/original applicant under section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The opponent/original applicant has sustained injuries in the vehicular accident on 1.1.2000 while he was performing his duty as driver with the appellant Corporation on Ajmer- Ahmedabad route, and when his bus bearing registration No. GJ.18/V.7455 reached at 21.15 hours 10 k.m. away from Sirohi, in the middle of bridge situated in between Rajpur and Sanwada, it collided with a vehicle which came negligently from opposite direction.
2. The opponent/original applicant had examined himself vide Exh.13 to prove the extent of employment injury. The said evidence remained uncontroverted as the appellant/original opponent had not remained present nor the appellant had cross examined the opponent. It is pertinent to note that the appellant/original opponent had filed written statement engaging learned Advocate Mr R.V. Sharma but except filing of written statement, both the appellant/original opponent and the learned Advocate remained absent at the relevant time and as a last resort, the right to lead evidence and right to make argument of the appellant/original opponent has been closed. Thus the evidence which was forthcoming on the record remained uncontroverted was accepted by the Commissioner. The medical certificate issued by the Doctor was duly proved by the concerned Doctor certifying the permanent disability to be 40% was accepted by the Commissioner. On the basis of the wages received by the opponent/original applicant, the Commissioner computed the total amount of compensation to be Rs. 1,62,662/- and Rs. 40,666/- towards 25% penalty on the said compensation amount payable to the opponent/original applicant. The Learned Commissioner also awarded 6% per annum interest on the compensation amount from 1.1.2000 i.e. from the date of accident.
3. Learned Advocate Mr Hardik Raval for the appellant/original opponent-S.T. Corporation has vehemently argued that though the written statement was filed in W.C.A. No. 17/2003, Learned Advocate Mr R.V. Sharma to whom the matter was entrusted had not attended the matter on several dates and for the mistake of Advocate, parties should not suffer. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned ex-parte order should be set aside.
4. It is pertinent to note that the injured employee had filed the W.C. Application No.17/2003 under the Workmen’s Compensation Act to claim compensation for employment injury sustained by him. Though the written statement was filed, no care was taken by the appellant and his Advocate. It was the prime duty of the appellant-Corporation to have attended the matter in the court or to make inquiry of the same with their Advocate. The learned Commissioner had given enough opportunity to the learned Advocate for the appellant/original opponent. In the cases under Workmen’s Compensation Act, human beings and human injuries are involved. It is also the fact that in spite of the ex-parte order, the appellant Corporation had not bothered to take action for setting aside the judgment/award and no notice had been issued to the erring Advocate. Under the circumstance, for its own mistake/negligence, one cannot be benefitted as argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant.
5. Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Commissioner of the Labour Court has seriously erred in granting interest from the date of the accident. Learned Advocate for the appellant, in support of his argument, has placed reliance on a decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Mubasir Ahmed [(2007) 2 SCC 349)]. Drawing my attention to para 9 of the said decision, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that it has been observed by the Apex Court that if there is default in paying the compensation due under the Workmen’s Compensation Act within one month from the date it fell due, the question of interest does not arise and when the starting point is on completion of one month from the date on which it fell due, obviously, it cannot be the date of accident. Since no indication is there as when it becomes due, it has to be taken to be the date of adjudication of the claim.
6. It is important to note that the above referred citation on which the appellant has placed reliance does not express the correct view and does not make binding precedents as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Siby George and Ors. [2012 ACJ 2126]. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the relevant discussion is in paras 11 and 12 which is reproduced hereunder:
“11. The decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC), was by a four Judge Bench and in Valsala K, 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), by a three Judge Bench of this court, both the decisions were, thus fully binding on the court in Mubasir Ahmed, 2007 ACJ 845 (SC) and Mohd. Nasir, 2009 ACJ 2742 (SC), each of which was heard by two Judges. But the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K were not brought to the notice of the court in the two later decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir.
12. In light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC) and Valsala K, 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), it is not open to contend that the payment of compensation would fall due only after the Commissioner’s order or with reference to the date on which the claim application is made. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed, 2007 ACJ 845 (SC) and Mohd. Nasir, 2009 ACJ 2742 (SC), insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala K., do not express the correct view and do not make binding precedents.”
6. Considering the above discussed evidence forthcoming on the record, there appears no substance in the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the appellant/original opponent that the learned Judge has erred in granting interest from the date of accident. Hence, under the circumstances, the plea which is always advanced that “the party should not suffer because of the mistake of the advocate” cannot be accepted in such matters and this court has no sympathy for the appellant Corporation. I do not find any error of law in the impugned judgment. Hence the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed in limine.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13516 OF 2012 In view of the order passed in the Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and it is accordingly disposed of.
msp [G. B. SHAH, J.]