# Shri Balak Ram v. N.I.C.L., Bareilly & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 116
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-08
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1596 of 2020
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shri-balak-ram-v-n-i-c-l-bareilly-anr-45441
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 Section 4A - Compensation - Payment
of
Interest-Statute
demands
that
the
claimant becomes entitled to interest within
a period of one month from the date the
amount accrues to him - Held, Insurance
company is liable to deposit the amount
with interest from one month to the date of
accident. (Para 5 and 6)
Appeal partly allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Learned M.A.C.P. Tribunal has
dismissed the claim petition on the ground
that it is hit by Section 166 (3).

The matter be listed tomorrow,
i.e., 20.11.2020 as according to the
information with the undersigned, the
provisions of 166 (3) as amended by 2019
Act has not been notified, however, the
learned counsel for the appellants would
like to ascertain the same, hence, list the
matter as fresh.

Meanwhile,
office
to
have
clarification from the learned Judge by
telephonic message as to notification under
Section 166 (3) as amended. Send email to the
Tribunal as despite telephonic messages, the
learned Tribunal does not respond."

19. Sri Satya Nand Upadhyay, learned
Additional District & Sessions Judge/Incharge
Presiding Officer, Motor Accident claims
Tribunal, Gorakhpur has sent his remarks that
the notification appointing the date on which
the provisions of the Act shall come into force
does not subscribe Section 52 to 57 of the
amended Act.

20. This Court is thankful to Sri Satya
Nand Upadhyay, learned Judge/Tribunal for
reverting back to this Court at a short
notice.
Sri
Virjendra
Kumar
Singh,
Presiding Office, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal shall remain more vigilant in
future while deciding the claim petition
under beneficial legislation.

21. In view of the above, I have no
hesitation in quashing and setting aside the
Judgment/order impugned. Claim petition is
ordered to be restored to file of Tribunal. The
Tribunal shall proceed as per 166 read with
Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as
till date amended section dealing with Chapter
X, XI XII of the act have not been brought on
statute book substituting the earlier provision.
Reference to the authoritative notification as
published on SCC online web edition
http://www.scconline.com, which also gives
glimpse of the amendments made. The
provisions of section 166 of the 2019 Act has
several implications which can be flagged,
namely, limitation, which was not there, has
been introduced. It appears that the Central
Government with a purpose not decided the
date for bringing in, has not brought the
provisions of amended Sections 52 to 57 which
relates to complete change to Chapter X, XI &
XII and, therefore, the amended Act has not
been brought on the statute book is very clear.
The scheme of the new regime would show that
they have not been brought on the statute book
by amending or repealing the earlier provisions
of Chapter X, XI & XII.

22. Copy of this order be circulated to
all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal so
that this fallacy may not creep in the future
proceedings.

23. This Court is also thankful to Sri
Rahul Sahai for having deputed his
colleague Sri Akshat Darbari to this Court.

24. With these observations, this
appeal is allowed."
----------
(2020)12ILR A116
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1596 of 2020

Shri Balak Ram ...Appellant
Versus
N.I.C.L., Bareilly & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel
for
the
Appellant:
12 All. Shri Balak Ram Vs. N.I.C.L., Bareilly & Anr.
117
Sri Sanjay Singh, Sri Amrendra Nath Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Radhey Shyam, Sri Pankaj Rai

A. Civil Law - Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 Section 4A - Compensation - Payment
of
Interest-Statute
demands
that
the
claimant becomes entitled to interest within
a period of one month from the date the
amount accrues to him - Held, Insurance
company is liable to deposit the amount
with interest from one month to the date of
accident. (Para 5 and 6)
Appeal partly allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. F.A.F.O. No. 1553 of 2020; Sanju Kushwaha
Vs Vimal Kumar Verma & anr. decided on
3.12.2020
2. Oriental Insurance Company Vs Siby George
& ors., 2012(4) T.A.C. 4 (SC)
3. Civil Appeal No. 7470 of 2009; North East
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt.
Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018
4. Civil Appeal No. 10018 of 2017, Smt. Surekha
& ors. Vs the Branch Manager, National
Insurance Company Ltd. decided on 3.8.2017
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the judgment and order
impugned.

2. This appeal at the behest of the
claimant challenges the judgment and order
dated 31.8.2020 passed by Employee
Compensation
Commissioner/Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Bareilly (hereinafter
referred to as 'Commissioner') in Case
No.19/E.C.A./2018 awarding a sum of
Rs.8,19,069/- with interest at the rate of
12% from the date of its order.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
challenges the order on a limited question
of law namely whether default of employer
in paying due compensation under the
Workmen's
Compensation
Act,
1923
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act') within one
month from the date it fell due, entitles the
claimant to 12% interest over the entire
amount assessed as compensation in
Claims proceeding under Section 4A of the
Act and from what date.

4. It is submitted by Sri Pankaj Rai,
learned counsel for the respondent that
reason for granting interest from the date of
order seems to be delay caused by the
claimant. Submission of Sri Pankaj Rai is
very attractive but no reasons appear to
have
been
assigned
by
the
learned
Commissioner.

5. Recently, this Court in First Appeal
From Order No. (Sanju Kushwah Vs.
Vimal Kumar Verma and another)
decided on 3.12.2020, has held as under:

"5. I am pained to pen down that the
Workmen's Commissioner in Uttar Pradesh
are time and again to be conveyed that they
are supposed to follow the statute under which
they are functioning. I am supported in my
view by the Judgments rendered by Supreme
Court in Oriental Insurance Company Vs.
Siby George and others, 2012(4) T.A.C. 4
(SC); Civil Appeal No. 7470 of 2009 North
East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation
Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018; and
Civil Appeal No. 10018 of 2017, Smt.
Surekha and others Vs. the Branch
Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd.
decided on 3.8.2017 which holds that
Insurance Company has to be made liable and
further the relevant date from when the interest
would be payable is decided therein, namely,
one month of the date, it accrues.
118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Learned counsel Sri S.K.
Mehrotra tried to point out that the
Judgment is just and proper, however, I am
not convinced as the statute demands that
the claimant becomes entitled to interest
within a period of one month from the date
the amount accrues to him. In our case, the
amount accrued to him one month after the
accident took place, i.e., 25.10.2017 and
the owner Vimal Kumar Verma, who was
insured by the respondent no.2 did not
make the payment.

7. In view of the aforesaid,
Judgment and award impugned herein is
modified. If the Insurance Company has not
yet deposited the amount, it shall deposit
the amount with interest at the rate of 12%
from one month from the date of accident,
i.e., 25.11.2017."

6. In view of the above, this appeal is
partly allowed. The judgment and award of
the learned Commissioner shall stand
modified to the extent that the insurance
company shall deposit the amount with
interest from one month from the date of
accident, i.e. 3.12.2017.

7. It goes without saying that once the
amount is deposited, the Commissioner
shall disburse the same and the Insurance
company shall not deduct TDS as against
the settled principles of law.

8. Despite directions of this Court, it
appears that the learned Commissioner is
not following the dictate of the legislation.
Hence,
explanation
of
learned
Commissioner be called for as to why
without assigning reasons, she had granted
interest from the date of order.

9. This Court is thankful to both the
learned Advocates for ably assisting this
Court. A copy of this order be sent to the
learned Commissioner below calling for his
remarks.

10. The matter be placed before the
undersigned on 15.1.2021 perusing the
remarks of the undersigned.
----------
(2020)12ILR A118
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1608 of 2020

Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C., Azamgarh
 ...Appellant
Versus
Subedar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik, Sri Sanjay Kumar
Srivastava

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section 147 - Existence of valid insurance
policy and proper driving licence - Liability of
Insurance Company - Exoneration of the
Company - Legality - Held, the judgment
and award of the Tribunal, not holding the
Insurance Company liable, is bad. (Para 4, 5
and 7)

Appeal allowed (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs
Rajendri Devi & ors., 2020 (3) T.A.C. 66 SC.
2. F.A.F.O. No.1507 of 2003; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Smt.
Sukha Devi & ors. decided on 3.11.2016 (DB)
3. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs
Kulsum
&
ors.,
(2011)
8
S.C.C.
142