R.B. Misra, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.R. Barman, learned Counsel for the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. Also heard Mr. G.S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment dated 26.6.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. TS (WC) 55 of 2003 specifically against the direction to pay interest at the rate of 12% on the awarded amount of compensation of Rs. 4,29,640/- with effect from filing of claim petition on 19.11.2003 till the date of payment.
3. It appears that TS. (W.C.) No. 55 of 2003 was preferred Under Section 4/4A/10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short called 'Compensation Act') by Smti. Sandhya Rani Das & Smti. Sima Das before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala claiming compensation in reference to the death of Bappi Das, husband of claimant Smti. Sandhya Rani Das in an accident which took place in course of employment under Shri Nil Ratan Paul, opposite-party/respondent No. 3 herein while driving a Minibus bearing No. TR-02-1210 along with passengers. The said suit/claim petition No. TS (WC) 55 of 2003 was adjudicated by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation after framing issues and on appreciation of the materials of records, evidences and witnesses and a compensation of Rs. 4,29,640/- was directed to be paid by the opposite-party in equal share along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on 19.11.2003 till the date of payment. In the said suit/claim petition, the employer (respondent No. 3) as well as the Insurance Company, the present petitioner have contested the said suit, whereby, learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation while awarding compensation has directed payment of interest to be made by the Insurance Company. The present petitioner/National Insurance Company Ltd, specifically being aggrieved by such direction made in impugned order dated 26.6.2006, has preferred present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution on the limited ground, whereas, the petitioner-Insurance Company is not aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation.
4. According to the petitioner, the direction for payment of interest by the Insurance Company is dehors the provisions of the Compensation Act. The court has issued notice specifically on the maintainability of the present Civil Revision Petition to deal the question in view of the fact as below:
When specific provision for filing appeal against the order of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation is available under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act then the petition under supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of Constitution is maintainable or not? More specifically, whether in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in : AIR2006SC1255 (Bijoy Kumar Dugar, petitioner v. Bidya Dhar Dutta arid Ors. respondents), the present Writ Petition (new nomenclature given by the High Court of Gauhati as Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 is maintainable?
5. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner/Insurance Company that direction for making payment of interest by the petitioner/Insurance Company is beyond the scope of the provisions of 'Compensation Act', therefore, to deal the validity and scope of impugned order in context of the jurisdictional and supervisory power or review, the Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution could be entertained. In support of his submission learned Counsel has referred the decision of this Court, Single Bench passed on 7.6.2006 in W.P.(C) No. 440 of 2005 (National Insurance Company v. Shri Kanai Dasgupta and Ors.) whereby, the direction for payment of interest by the Insurance Company to the claimant in reference to the award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation was set aside with further direction to make payment by the employer. This Court in its above order of Kanai Dasgupta (supra) has referred and relied upon the decisions of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India : 1997(89)ELT247(SC) , State v. Navjot Sandhu (2003) 6 SCC 541 & Surya Devi Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 575.
6. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Mr. G.S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 the employer that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in : AIR2006SC1255 , (Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta and Ors. like Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the aggrieved party can prefer appeal under the specific relevant provision provided in the 'Compensation Act' which is very specifically applicable to the case in hand and according to Mr. Bhattacharjee since the insurer had fully participated in adjudicating of the suit/claim petition in question before Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and irrespective of agreeing for the quantum of compensation awarded, the Insurance Company has to resort to the proper remedy for the redressal of any other grievances including the grievance of direction in respect of payment of interest and for that purpose the petitioner-Insurance Company, has to prefer appeal under Section 30 of the 'Compensation Act'.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the available materials on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra) has analyzed in detail the scope of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in reference to the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The provisions for preferring an appeal under Motor Vehicles Act are similar to the provisions of filing appeal under 'Compensation Act'. Therefore, observations and guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra) while considering its earlier judgment in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. : [2003]1SCR567 as well as Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav : (1993)IILLJ664SC and G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas : AIR1994SC1631 are also applicable to the matters of filing appeal under 'Compensation Act'. It has been clearly laid down that when insurer has a remedy for filing an appeal before the High Court on the available defences envisaged under the statute then writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution by an insurer challenging the award of MACT is not maintainable. For convenience para 17 of the judgment of Bijoy Kumar Dugar is extracted below:
It is not in dispute that the right of appeal is a statutory right to the parties and where the law provides a remedy by filing an appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution on the premise that the insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by MACT. Under Section 173 of the Act, an insurer has a right to file an appeal before the High Court on limited grounds available under Section 149(2). The appeal being a product of the statute it is not open to an insurer to take any plea other than those provided under Section 149(2) of the Act. However, in a situation where there is collusion between the claimant and the insurer or the insured does not contest the claim and further, if MACT does not implead the Insurance Company to contest the claim, in such a situation it is open to the insurer to seek permission of MACT to contest the claim on the ground available to the insured or to a person against whom the claim has been made. If permission is granted and the insurer is allowed to contest the claim on merit, in that case it is open to the insurer to file an appeal against the award of MACT on merits. Thus, in such a situation, the insurer can question the quantum of compensation awarded by MACT. As noticed earlier in the present case, the insurer made a challenge to the award of MACT before the High Court in the writ petition on the ground of its liability to pay the interest on the amount of compensation for a specified period without obtaining the permission of MACT as contemplated under the statute. Thus, in the light the decision of this Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. dealing with the provisions of Section 173 and 149(2) of the Act and the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and also Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 this Court held that since the insurer has a remedy by filing an appeal before the High Court on the available defences envisaged under the statute, writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution by an insurer challenging the award of MACT is not maintainable.
8. Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is also extracted here for convenience:
4A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default. (1) Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid soon as it falls due.
(2) in cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepted and such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to workman as the case may be without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim.
(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the commissioner shall--
(a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the leading rates of any scheduled banks as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and
(b) if, in his opinion, there is Article justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, and interest thereon pay a further sum not exceeding fifty percent of such amount by way of penalty.
Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under Clause (b) without giving as reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed.
9. In my respectful consideration when the petitioner-Insurance Company is aggrieved by and dissatisfied even with the quantum of compensation as well as direction given by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for making payment of interest by the Insurance Company (not by the employer), in such circumstances, the Insurance Company has to prefer appeal under Section 30 of 'Compensation Act'. Even if the petitioner Insurance Company is not aggrieved with the quantum of compensation but has fully participated in the suit/claim petition, in such circumstances being aggrieved by the direction of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation for making payment of interest to the claimant, the proper course would also be to prefer appeal under Section 30 of 'Compensation Act' and not to resort to avail the remedy of preferring Writ Petition/Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. For the purpose of redressal of grievances above two issues cannot be separated.
10. It is not a case where Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation has adjudicated the suit/claim petition out of his jurisdiction. Testing the scope whether giving direction for making payment of interest by the petitioner-Insurance Company is dehors or contrary to the provisions of 'Compensation Act' cannot be segregated or taken separately or in isolation. Awarding quantum of compensation and giving direction for payment of interest are factors though different but are to be dealt with and tested at one forum under specific provisions of Act or Statute prescribed for the purpose. The party i.e. Insurance Company if aggrieved against quantum of Workmen's Compensation shall not choose one particular forum and provision by availing the remedy of filing appeal under Section 30 of the 'Compensation Act' and shall not choose another provision or different provision at different forum by preferring Writ Petition/Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before High Court in respect of grievance of direction of payment of interest by Insurance Company. Therefore, for both grievances the Insurance Company shall have also to prefer appeal. As the direction for payment of interest is an essential component of the award of compensation finalized after adjudication of the suit/claim petition, since in the decision of this Court (Single Bench) in Kanai Dasgupta (supra) the latest decision of Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh (supra) as well as decision of Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra) have not been considered, therefore, the decision of this Court (Single Bench) in Kanai Dasgupta (supra) shall not be a guideline on the issue.
11. In These circumstances, the court is not invoking its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to redress the grievance of the petitioner-Insurance Company in its supervisory jurisdiction. The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is accordingly dismissed.