Judgment:
1. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of learned counsel for rival parties. In these three appeals, judgment and Award dated 24.9.2010 passed by Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Amravati, in Application (WCA) No. 8/2005, 9/2005 and 10/2005 are under challenge.
2. By the impugned judgment and Award, the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act awarded compensation to the respondents/employees with interest at 12% per annum from 15.12.2004, i.e. after a month from the date of accident- 14.11.2004.
3. In support of appeals, Mr.Kasat, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the compensation would fall due only when the Commissioner makes an application as to whether the accident took place, whether the workman was entitled to compensation, and whether the employer or any other person was responsible to make payment of compensation. According to him, unless the same is adjudicated, the compensation will not fall due and, therefore, on the date of adjudication by the Commissioner the same would fall due. He, thus urged that the Commissioner by making the impugned order committed error in awarding compensation from 15.12.2004 instead of from the date of judgment, i.e. 24.9.2010. He relied upon the decision of supreme court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed & anr. - (2007) 2 SCC 349, and in particular para 9 thereof.
4. Per contra, Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, placed reliance on the decision of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata & anr. reported in (1976) 1 SCC 289 and argued that that the supreme court has taken a view that the date on which the compensation had fallen due is the date of cause of personal injury to the workman and hence the decision in Pratap Narain Singh, supra, deserves to be followed.
5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, the point that arises for my consideration is:
"Whether the date when the compensation becomes due is the date one month after the date of accident or the actual date of adjudication of claim by the Commissioner in the matter of award of compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (as amended)?"
6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. I have also perused the impugned judgment and Award in all these appeal. I have also perused the judgments of supreme court cited supra. The decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo is by four Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court while the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Mubasir Ahmed is by two Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court. The decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo is directly on the point in issue and the Hon'ble supreme Court in the said decision rendered by four Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court has had to say thus in para 6 and 7 thereof :
"6. It has next been argued that the Commissioner committed a serious error of law in imposing a penalty on the appellant under Section 4A(3) of the Act as the compensation had not fallen due until it was `settled' by the Commissioner under Section 19 by his impugned order dated May 6, 1969. There is however no force in this argument.
7. Section 3 of the Act deals with the employer's liability for compensation. Sub-section (1) of that section provides that the employer shall be liable to pay compensation if "personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
" It was not the case of the employer that the right to compensation was taken away under sub- section (5) of Section 3 because of the institution of a suit in a civil court for damages, in respect of the injury, against the employer or any other person. The employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of the employment. It is therefore futile to contend that the compensation did not fall due until after the Commissioner's order dated May 6, 1969 under Section 19. What the section provides is that if any question arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay compensation or as to the amount or duration of the compensation it shall, in default of agreement, be settled by the Commissioner. There is therefore nothing to justify the argument that the employer's liability to pay compensation under Section 3, in respect of the injury, was suspended until after the settlement contemplated by Section 19. The appellant was thus liable to pay compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the appellant, and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary."
7. The decision of two Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court takes a view that unless adjudication is done the question of becoming due does not arise, since the expression used is 'falls due' and not from the date of accident. However, since the decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo is by four Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court, I am bound to follow the said decision. Hence, in the light of the decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo I hold that the compensation is payable from one month after the date of accident and not from the date when the adjudication is done by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner has followed the same principle and therefore the point which arose for my determination will have to be answered that the compensation fell due one month after the date of accident and not from the date when the Commissioner adjudicated. In the result, I make the following order.
ORDER
F.A. Nos. 1260/10, 1261/10 and 1262/10 are dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each payable to the respondents.
At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prays for extension of stay granted by this Court. In view of the fact that the matter relates to the compensation of workman, prayer is rejected.