1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Godhra, dated 23.12.2010, rendered in W.C. Case No.29 of 1996, whereby the learned Commissioner awarded Rs.2,13,570/- along with 12 per cent interest from 21.08.1996.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on account of a vehicular accident, which took place on 21.06.1996, one Yakubbhai, who was serving as driver on the truck owned by respondent No.10 and insured by the present appellant, lost his life. Respondent Nos. 1 to 9, therefore, being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased preferred the aforesaid application claiming compensation, wherein the learned Commissioner for Workmen's compensation passed the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant raised various contentions. He submitted that the learned W.C. Commissioner erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The learned W.C. Commissioner failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. He, further, contended that the learned W.C. Commissioner erred in awarding interest from 21.08.1996. He has, therefore, prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Advocate on behalf of the original claimants has opposed the appeal and has prayed to dismiss the same as being without merits. None appears on behalf of respondent No.10.
5. Heard, learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. The case of the original claimants before driver and on account of the alleged accident, the deceased lost his life, while he was on duty. The complaint(Exhibit-22) filed by the cleaner of the said truck also supports the case of the claimants. The appellant failed to produce any material on record which would even remotely suggest that the deceased was the owner of the truck and not an employee of respondent No.10. Hence, the tribunal rightly held that there was 'master' and 'servant' relationship between the deceased and respondent No.10 and therefore, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation.
7. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants produced salary certificate of the deceased issued by respondent No.10, wherein the salary of the deceased is stated to be Rs.3400/- per month plus other allowances. Respondent No.10, the owner of the truck, neither entered the witness-box nor the appellant got any witness summons issued to him to controvert the aspect of salary. Thus, I find no illegality in the compensation awarded by the learned W.C. Commissioner relying on the same. Thus, the contentions raised by the learned W.C. Commissioner with regard to liability, factum and quantum etc. requires to be rejected.
8. Insofar as the aspect of interest is concerned, the learned W.C. Commissioner has awarded interest from 21.08.1996 i.e. after one month from the date of accident. In that view of the matter, here, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the matter of “UPSRTC NOW UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT CORP. VS. SATNAM SINGH”, reported in 2011(2)SCALE 432, wherein the apex Court in Para-7 has held as under:
“In National Insurance Co. Ltd.(Supra), this Court has held that there is no indication in Section 4-A(1) as to when the compensation payable under Section 4 falls due and therefore it has to be taken that the compensation becomes due on the date on which the claim for compensation is adjudicated...”
[Emphasis Supplied]
9. In above view of the matter, the direction issued by the learned W.C. Commissioner, requiring the appellant to pay the amount of compensation from 21.08.1996 requires to be substituted by the direction to the appellant to pay the amount of compensation from the date of the award made by the learned W.C. Commissioner i.e. 23.12.2010.
10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is directed to pay interest on the amount of compensation from the DATE of ADJUDICATION of claim application i.e. 23.12.2010 and not from 21.08.1996. The excess amount towards interest, IF ANY, deposited by the appellant be REFUNDED to it. The judgment and order impugned in this appeal stands modified to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
Since, first appeal is disposed of, civil application will not survive and it also stands disposed of, accordingly.
Umesh/ (K.S. JHAVERI,J.)