ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Sri K. Gopal, the learned Counsel representing review petitioners-appellants and Sri Bhaskar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the 2nd respondent. The review C.M.P. is filed praying for review of the order passed in C.M.A. No. 3853 of 2002 dated 2.1.2003 made by this Court. The short ground raised in the Review CMP is that the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the dale of realization should have been awarded as per the Larger Bench judgment of this Court reported in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. B. Vijaya, : AIR2002AP441 . The question is whether it is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record so as to attract the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, Sri K. Gopal, the learned Counsel representing the review petitioners in all fairness submitted that the Larger Bench decision was not cited by him by mistake. The learned Counsel also submitted that even the language of Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is very clear and hence, in any view of the matter it is definitely an error apparent on the face of the record and if the error is allowed to stand it will cause serious prejudice to the petitioners. The Counsel also had drawn my attention to the decision reported in Sasidharan v. State of Kerala, 2001 ACJ 1502. The Counsel also had taken me through the findings recorded in B. Vijaya's case (supra). Per contra, Sri Bhaskar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the Insurance Company had submitted that the principle of granting 9% interest had been properly extended even in the present case also and it will not amount to either mistake or error apparent on the face of record and hence it cannot be said to be a ground for review. In the alternative, the learned Counsel had drawn my attention to Section 4-A and also Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and also Section 171 and other relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and had contended that the view expressed by this Court relating to the reckoning of cause of action on the date of accident must be held to be definitely bad in the light of the view expressed by the Apex Court in a decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narendra Pandurang Kadam, : AIR1995SC782 . Elaborate submissions were made to justify the stand taken by the Insurance Company at the time when the order which is sought to be reviewed, had been made.
2. Heard both the Counsel,
3. The review petitioners had preferred CMA 3853 of 2002 as against an order passed in W.C. No. 89 of 1998 dated 27.3.2002 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Kurnool. Aggrieved by the fact that the interest of 12% p.a. was not awarded from the date of accident till the date of realisation even though the amount was not deposited in 30 days. No doubt, several decisions had been cited by. both the Counsel and this Court mainly relying upon the Full Bench decision reported in General Manager and Ors. v. Sangum Bhagyamma, : 2001(5)ALD404 (FB), and also in view of the fact that the rate of interest of the scheduled bank is 9% p.a. came to the conclusion that the review petitioners are entitled to interest of 9% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization and had modified the order of the Court below accordingly. It is no doubt true that the Larger Bench decision reported in B. Vijaya's case (supra) was not brought to the notice of this Court while making the order in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The Larger Bench while dealing with Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and Sections 167 and 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, had arrived at a conclusion that in the case of awarding of interest on compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is not applicable and interest of 12% provided under Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is not the guiding factor for awarding interest at 12% p.a. or at a higher rate not exceeding the maximum of lending credits of any scheduled bank in a case arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In Sasidhran 's case (supra) while dealing with Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held that it is obligatory on the part of the Commissioner to grant interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of payment, if deposit of compensation is delayed for more than a month. In the light of the above legal position, now it is to be seen whether this is a ground for review at all under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. It is needless to say that the decision of the larger Bench specified supra is the binding decision and evidently by mistake the said decision was not brought to the notice of this Court while making the said order. However, yet another Full -Bench decision arising under the Motor Vehicles Act was brought to the notice of this Court and the said principle was followed. In Rajendra Kumar v. Rambhai, 2003 AIR SCW 92, while dealing with the foremost requirement of the review, the Apex Court held that the order to be reviewed must suffer from error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In Tinkari Sen and Ors. v. Dulal Chandra Das, : AIR1967Cal518 , while dealing with the expression 'mistake or error apparent on the face of the record', it was held that when clear legal position established by a binding authority is overlooked, it becomes an error within Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. In Dawuri Chengal Reddi v. Devareddi Venkatasubba Reddi and Ors., 1967 (2) An.WR 432, it was held that an error of law will justify a review because an error apparent on face of record will also include an error of law. In Mumtazuddin Khan v. Fatima Begum, AIR 1956 Hyderabad 164, it was held that that wherein a revenue case the Revenue Member's judgment is against the established law and practice of the Atiya Department, it is an error apparent on the face of record and hence the Board of Revenue is justified in setting aside the judgment in review and the decision cannot be said to be on insufficient grounds. In Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors., : (1997)8SCC715 , the Apex Court while dealing with 'Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record' it was held it should be self-evident and must not require a process of reasoning and it is distinguishable from erroneous decision. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the language of Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 itself is very clear. The words read as follows. 'At such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank.' In view of the clear language employed in the provisions and also in the light of the view expressed by a Larger Bench in B. Vijaya's case (supra) inasmuch as 9% interest was awarded, without considering a binding decision, it is definitely a case falling under 'Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record' within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. However, the Counsel for the Insurance Company placing reliance on Narendra Pandurang Kadam 's case (supra) had made an attempt to advance a contention relating to the reckoning of the cause of action whether to be reckoned from the date of accident or not? I am afraid that this question cannot be gone into for the reason that the Insurance Company had not filed any review CMP praying for the review of the order. The petitioners only aggrieved by the granting of 9% interest instead of 12% interest had preferred the present review CMP. Hence, I am not inclined to go into the said question in the present review CMP filed by the petitioners. In view of the same, I am thoroughly satisfied that while making the order dated 2-1-2003 in CMA No. 3853 of 2002 an error had crept in while awarding interest at 9% per annum instead of 12% per annum and in view of the same the review CMP is allowed granting interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization.
4. The Review CMP is accordinglyallowed. No order as to costs.