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

How to appreciate evidence if one eye witness did not see other witness during occurence of incident?

When we analyse the statements of PW1 and PW65, they are not contradictory to each other, rather they are complementary to each other. Merely because PW65 did not see PW1 until the accused had left, does not mean that she was not present at the place of occurrence and she did not witness the occurrence. She has already stated that she was afraid of her own life and so she was hiding to some extent, and thus, PW65 might not have seen her. PW65 made a call to the police but did not mention PW1’s presence to the police at that time. This fact is quite natural as in the commotion, he had made a police call only to inform the police about the incident and could not provide details for the same.

The fact that PW1 was not named in the inquest report is of no consequence as the inquest report relates to the cause of death and not the witnesses’ account of the incident. The first informant though had not named PW1 in the complaint such omission is not fatal in the face of otherwise cogent and convincing evidence of PW1, corroborated by PW65. 

Reportable

Sheikh Sintha Madhar @ Jaffer @ ... vs State Rep.By Inspector Of Police on 13 April, 2016

Bench: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Amitava Roy

Citation:AIR 2016 SC 1844 ; 2016(3) Supreme 752

Print Page