# Smt. Chanda Begum & Anr v. Shri Shahnawaz & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 404
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 1244 of 2020
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-chanda-begum-anr-v-shri-shahnawaz-anr-46018
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Employees Compensation
Act (8 of 1923) - Section 4A -
Compensation - Interest - payment of
interest is a consequence of default & it
has to be directed to be paid without
going into the reasons for the delay -
Penalty - only in case where the delay
is without justification, the employer
might also be held liable to penalty
after giving him a show cause notice -
Liability of Insurance Company to pay-
 just because the owner had not
intimated to the Insurance Company
about the accident it cannot be the
reason for not directing the Insurance
Company to pay the interest & saddling
the owner with the payment of interest
- Finding that Insurance Company is
not liable for interest is against the
spirit of taking insurance policy (Para
10,11,15)

Partly allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

40. Although the appellant Vijay
Singh was medically examined and his
medical examination report is on record but
the same has neither been relied by the
prosecution for any event nor has he taken
use of it for any benefit. The same has not
even been proved in the trial by any
witness.

41. The evidence of Paramsukh P.W.-
2 also suffers from the same lacunas as that
of "V" P.W.-1.

42. This court comes to the
conclusion that although "V" P.W.-1 is the
prosecutrix/victim of the present case and
Paramsukh P.W.-2 is the first informant
and her father who claims himself to be an
eye witness of the incident and both the
witnesses have tried to narrate a version for
implicating the accused appellants but the
same is a concocted version is termed as a
"concocted uniformity" and is thus not safe
to be relied upon. The said two witnesses
fall in the category of unreliable witnesses.

43. Thus the conviction of the
appellants by the trial court is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. The trial
court committed an error in recording the
conviction and sentence of the appellants.
Hence the impugned judgment and order
dated 31.10.2007 passed by the trial court
is liable to be set aside, which is
accordingly set aside.

44. The present appeals are allowed.

45. The appellants- Vijay Singh and
Hariom Sharma are in jail. They are
directed to be released forthwith unless
wanted in any other case.

46. Keeping in view the provision of
Section 437-A of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 the accused-appellants
Vijay Singh and Hariom Sharma are
directed to furnish a personal bond in terms
of Form No. 45 prescribed in The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 of a sum of Rs.
25,000/- with two reliable sureties in the
like amount before the court concerned
which shall be effective for a period of six
months along with an undertaking that in
the event of filing of Special Leave Petition
against the instant judgment or for grant of
leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of
notice thereof shall appear before the Apex
Court.

47. The lower court record along with
a copy of this judgment be sent back
immediately to the trial court concerned for
compliance and necessary action.

48. The party(ies) shall file computer
generated
copy
of
such
judgment
downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad before the concerned
Court/Authority/Official.

49. The computer generated copy of
such judgment shall be self-attested by the
counsel(s) of the party(ies) concerned.

50.

The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the judgment from the official website of
High Court Allahabad and shall make a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2021)01ILR A404
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
1 All. Smt. Chanda Begum & Anr. Vs. Shri Shahnawaz & Anr.
405
FAFO No. 1244 of 2020
&
FAFO Defective No. 545 of 2020

Smt. Chanda Begum & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Shri Shahnawaz & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Shreesh Srivastava, Sri Sanjay Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Subhash Chandra Srivastava

Civil Law - Employees Compensation
Act (8 of 1923) - Section 4A -
Compensation - Interest - payment of
interest is a consequence of default & it
has to be directed to be paid without
going into the reasons for the delay -
Penalty - only in case where the delay
is without justification, the employer
might also be held liable to penalty
after giving him a show cause notice -
Liability of Insurance Company to pay-
 just because the owner had not
intimated to the Insurance Company
about the accident it cannot be the
reason for not directing the Insurance
Company to pay the interest & saddling
the owner with the payment of interest
- Finding that Insurance Company is
not liable for interest is against the
spirit of taking insurance policy (Para
10,11,15)

Partly allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :-

1. Miskina & 5 ors. Vs M/s H.D.F.C. Egro
General Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. FAFO
No.1538 of 2020 dt. 26.11.2020

2. Sri Shiv Lal & anr. Vs.Sri Vivek Shaker Gupta
& anr. FAFO No. 1673 of 2020 dt. 10.12.2020.
3. Oriental Insurance Company Vs Siby
George & ors. 2012(4) T.A.C. 4 (SC);

4. Smt. Surekha & ors. Vs The Branch
Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd
Civil Appeal No. 10018 of 2017 dt 3.8.2017

5. Sanju Kushwaha Vs Vimal Kumar Verma;
FAFO No. 1553 of 2020 dt 3.12.2020

6. Sri Shiv Lal & anr. Vs Sri Vivek Shaker
Gupta & anr. FAFO No.1673 of 2020 dt
10.12.2020

7. Guru Govekar Vs Miss Filomena F. Lobo
& ors., AIR 1988 SC 1332

8. K. Shivaraman & ors. Vs P. Satishkumar
& ors. 2020 (4) SCC 594

9. North East KRTC Vs Smt. Sujatha Civil
Appeal No. 7470 of 2009 dt 2.11.2018

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. First Appeal From Order No.1244
of 2020 is preferred by claimants and
First Appeal From Order Defective
No.545 of 2020 is filed by the owner
which have been placed before this Court
for final disposal. Appeal preferred by
Insurance Company namely F.A.F.O No.
1301 of 2020 has already been decided
rather dismissed with costs by my brother
Judge on 27.8.2020. Papers of the said
matter are placed for perusal before this
Court.

2. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastva,
learned counsel for the appellant-claimants,
Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel
for
appellant-owner
and
Sri
Subash
Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for
respondent-Insurance Company.
406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. Both these appeals arise out of the
judgment and award dated 18.2.2020
passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 (for short as 'Act')
being Additional Labour Commissioner,
Kanpur
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'Commissioner')
awarding
sum
of
Rs.6,30,062/- with interest at the rate of 9%
from the date of accrual of compensation in
favour of the claimants. The owner was
saddled with liability to pay interest and
notice for hearing as to why penalty should
not be directed was issued. The Insurance
Company was directed to satisfy decretal
amount and interest from the date of
judgment till deposit of amount.

4. As far as the appeal of the
claimants is concerned, the only question of
law to be answered is whether in the given
facts and circumstances of the case, the
Commission has committed manifest error
of law holding that if the respondent has
failed to deposit the awarded amount
within 30 days from the date of judgment
then only claimants are entitled for the
interest at the rate of 9% from the date of
award till the amount is deposited.

5. In support of his submission,
learned counsel for the claimants has relied
on the decision in First Appeal From Order
No.1538 of 2020 titled (Miskina and 5
others Vs. M/s H.D.F.C. Egro General
Insurance Co. Ltd. and other) decided on
26.11.2020 and decision rendered in First
Appeal From Order No.1673 of 2020 titled
(Sri Shiv Lal and another Vs.Sri Vivek
Shaker Gupta and Another) decided on
10.12.2020.

6. As far as appeal of the owner is
concerned, learned counsel for the owner
has submitted that the Commissioner has
committed patent error directing the owner
to pay interest though the question is no
longer res integra.

7. In support of his submission,
learned counsels both for the claimants and
owner have relied on the decisions in
Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Siby
George and others, 2012(4) T.A.C. 4
(SC); Smt. Surekha and others Vs. The
Branch Manager, National Insurance
Company Ltd. decided on 3.8.2017, First
Appeal From Order No. 1553 of 2020
(Sanju Kushwaha Vs. Vimal Kumar
Verma) decided on 3.12.2020 and First
Appeal From Order No.1673 of 2020 (Sri
Shiv Lal and another Vs.Sri Vivek
Shaker Gupta and Another) decided on
10.12.2020.

8. As against this, learned counsel for
Insurance Company tried to point out that
the judgment and order impugned is just
and proper as it was the duty of the owner
to notify the insurance company about the
accident which was not done and hence the
owner was saddled with the payment of
interest till date of decision and this is a
finding of fact which does not require to be
interfered with.

9. While dealing with the above
questions of law, it would be appropriate to
reproduce Section 4A of the Act which
reads as under:

"4A. Compensation to be paid
when due and penalty for default.?

1.Compensation under section 4
shall be paid as soon as it falls due.

2.In cases where the employer
does
not
accept
the
liability
for
compensation to the extent claimed, he
shall be bound to make provisional
payment based on the extent of liability
which he accepts, and, such payment shall
1 All. Smt. Chanda Begum & Anr. Vs. Shri Shahnawaz & Anr.
407
be deposited with the Commissioner or
made to the workman, as the case may be,
without prejudice to the right of the
workman to make any further claim.

3.Where any employer is in
default in paying the compensation due
under this Act within one month from the
date it fell due, the Commissioner shall?

(a.)direct that the employer shall,
in addition to the amount of the arrears,
pay simple interest thereon at the rate of
twelve per cent per annum or at such
higher rate not exceeding the maximum of
the lending rates of any scheduled bank as
may
be
specified
by
the
Central
Government, by notification in the Official
Gazette, on the amount due; and

(b.)if, in his opinion, there is no
justification for the delay, direct that the
employer shall, in addition to the amount of
the arrears, and interest thereon pay a
further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of
such amount by way of penalty:

Provided that an order for the
payment of penalty shall not be passed
under
clause
(b)
without
giving
a
reasonable opportunity to the employer to
show cause why it should not be passed.

Explanation.?For the purposes of
this sub-section, ?scheduled bank? means a
bank for the time being included in the
Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of
India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934)."

10. The Supreme Court in the case
titled Oriental Insurance Company Vs.
Siby George and others, 2012(4) T.A.C. 4
(SC) where in it has been held by the Apex
Court that payment of interest is a
consequence of default and it has to be
directed to be paid without going into the
reasons for the delay and only in case
where the delay is without justification, the
employer might also be held liable to
penalty after giving him a show cause
notice. Thus, just because the owner had
not intimated to the Insurance Company, it
cannot be the reason for not directing the
Insurance Company to pay the interest.

11. Hence, the findings that the
Insurance Company will not be liable for
interest is against the spirit of taking the
insurance policy and the very object for
introducing insurance policy would get
frustrated. I am even fortified in my view
by the decision in the case titled Guru
Govekar vs Miss Filomena F. Lobo &
Ors, AIR 1988 SC 1332.

12. In K. Shivaraman and others
Vs. P. Satishkumar and others, 2020 (4)
SCC
594,
after
considering
several
decisions, the purpose of Workmen's
Compensation Act has been reiterated. The
scope of Section 4 and 4A has been
reconsidered. In paragraph 16 of the
judgment the word used is 'as soon as it
falls due'. Thus the said decision would
also help the claimant as well as the owner
to the facts in this case.

13. I am even fortified in my view by
the decision in Civil Appeal No. 7470 of
2009
North
East
Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha
decided on 2.11.2018, in 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, when the
compensation accrues. The decision of this
Court in First Appeal From Order No.1538
of 2020 (Miskina and 5 others vs. M/s
H.D.F.C. Egro General Insurance Ltd.
and another) decided on 26.11.2020 and
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
First Appeal From Order No. 1553 of 2020
(Sanju Kushwaha Vs. Vimal Kumar
Verma) decided on 3.12.2020 will also aid
both claimants and owner.

14. In view of the above, questions of
law framed in both these appeals are
answered in the affirmative.

15. These appeals are partly allowed.
The
judgment
and
award
of
the
Commissioner shall stand modified to the
aforesaid extent namely to the extent that
the Insurance Company shall deposit the
decretal amount with interest at the rate of
12% from one month after the date of
accident till the amount is deposited.

15. The appeal of the Insurance
Company has been dismissed with costs
quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Learned counsel
for the Insurance Company has conveyed
that amount of cost be converted to penalty
if at all this Court feels that penalty has to
be imposed. Normally the penalty will have
to be paid if it is found that there was
deliberate reason for delay in paying the
amount. Here, it is the parents who are
demanding from one son for the death of
another son and they have claimed from
Insurance Company with whom the vehicle
was insured to make payment. Hence, the
minimal penalty of Rs.10,000/- would
suffice which was the cost inflicted by my
brother Judge on the Insurance Company.
Appellants of these appeals shall deposit a
sum of Rs.10,000/- which would be
substitution for penalty. The notice for
penalty is also now not to be proceeded
with further by the authorities in peculiar
facts of this case.

16. This Court is thankful to all the
learned Advocate for ably assisting the
Court and Sri S.D. Ojha, learned Advocate
for rendering services as Amicus Curiae.
----------
(2021)01ILR A408
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 2389 of 2020

Alka Pandey ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pradeep Kumar Rai, Devansh Mishra,
Prakash Pandey, Praveen Kumar Shukla,
Priyansu Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code (2 of 1974) - Section 482 -
Unwarranted
&
Adverse
remark
against subordinate judicial officer -
Expunction - High Court has inherent
powers u/s 482 CrPC to expunge the
remarks
made
by
itself
or
by
subordinate Court to prevent abuse of
process of Court or otherwise secure
the ends of justice (Para 9)

B. Constitution of India , Art.235 -
District
and
Sessions
Judge
has
administrative
control
over
the
judicial officers subordinate to him,
but the administrative control cannot
be
equated
to
power
of
superintendence which is vested only
with the High Courts - if the conduct
of the subordinate judicial officer
requires corrective action advisable
course available is to intimate the
Hon'ble the Chief Justice or the
Administrative Judge along with the