Whether court should permit appointment of commissioner when evidence of both parties are over?

 In view of the foregoing discussion the legal position, as
it emerges, is that in a case where the parties have closed
their evidence any application filed for appointment of a
commissioner at the stage of arguments would not be
permissible as it would amount to permitting the party to fill
up lacunae in its evidence. The object of the provision for
issuance of commission cannot be to assist a party to collect
evidence or to initiate a roving enquiry.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Case :WRIT A No. 10463 of 2019

Sanjay Alias Mathura Vs Onkar Arora

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Dated:Order Date :15.7.2019

Print Page

Whether commissioner under workman compensation Act can grant interest on compensation from date of incident?

 On a complete evaluation of the Workmen's

Compensation       Act,  since   re-christened   as   "Employees

Compensation Act, 1923", we see that the liability to pay

compensation is statutory. Section 3 onwards in Chapter II of

that Act would show that the liability that arises is fixed

statutorily. It runs from the sufferance of the incident that

generates the right in the employee or workman to

compensation. Hence, the employer has a statutory liability to

deposit amounts which he admits as compensation. Similarly,

even if there is any settlement of claims to the extent

permitted under that Act, such agreements can work only with

the seal of approval of the Commissioner. The liability to pay

interest would start to run from the non-performance and

non-discharge of the obligation to pay the compensation. That

liability being a statutory one under Section 3, it would run

from the date of the incident. May be, in exceptionally


exceptional cases where there is grave and enormous delay in

making a demand for compensation, the Courts may take a

different view; of course, without ignoring the fact that the

legislation is meant to provide support to a socially and

economically challenged and marginalized sector of the

society. With this, we follow the judgment in M.F.A.No.59 of

2011 and hold that the Commissioner was justified in granting

interest from the date of the incident.

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT:

               MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
                                                              &
                 MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

                   12TH DAY OF JUNE 2012

               M.F.A.(W.C.Act) No.56 of 2008 (F)
                               
            THE MANAGER, LETCHMI ESTATE,
           Vs

          M.MURUGAN 12159, 

Print Page