1. This Review Petition is filed by the Respondent Nos.3 C 4 in MFA (ECC) No.27/2023 filed under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, to review the Judgment dated 08.09.2025 passed by this Court disposing the Appeal. The Respondent No.1 is the Appellant/Insurance Company and the Respondent Nos.2 C 3 are the Respondent Nos.1 C 2 in the Appeal who filed Application for compensation before the Employees Compensation Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act.

2. The parties are referred to according to their status in this Review Petition.

3. The Employees Compensation Commissioner passed Award in favour of the Respondent Nos.2 C 3 herein, who are the dependants of the deceased employee, awarding compensation of Rs.6,12,360/- with simple interest @ 12% from the date of accident till the date of deposit/recovery, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs.1,225/- being the cost towards payment of court fee and directing the Respondent No.1/Insurance Company to deposit the said amounts.

4. The Respondent No.1 filed Appeal contending that the Respondent No.1 is not liable to pay interest on the compensation awarded in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya [2006 (2) KLT 667 (SC)] and that as per the declared wages, the wages of the employee is Rs.5,850/- and hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation calculated at the monthly wages of Rs.5,850/-.

5. This Court admitted the Appeal on the following two substantial questions of law:

                  “(i) Whether the insurer is having liability to pay interest on the compensation amount in view of the decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya [2006 (2) KLT 667 (SC)] ?

                  (ii) Whether the insurer is having the unlimited liability to indemnify the employer, irrespective of the terms of agreement fixing the premium amount at the time when the policy was issued ?”

6. This Court passed the impugned judgment answering both the questions of law in favour of the Respondent No.1 herein and modifying the order of the Commissioner directing the Respondent No.1 to pay Rs.4,54,013/-to the Respondent Nos.2 C 3 and directing the Review Petitioners to pay Rs.1,58,347/- and interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire compensation of Rs.6,12,360/- from the date of accident till payment/realisation with funeral expenses of Rs.5,000/- and court fee of Rs.1,225/-.

7. Now the Review is filed on the ground that while passing the impugned judgment, this Court failed to consider the two binding Division Bench Judgments of this Court, i.e., The New India Assurance Company Limited v. J. Chellappan and Others [2017:KER:39705] and Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaleeswari and Another [2017 (5) KHC 844].

8. I heard the learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners, Sri. N. James Koshy, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Insurance Company, Sri. Lal K. Joseph, and the learned Counsel for Respondents Nos.2 C 3, Sri. Devika Mohan.

9. The learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners contended that it is well settled by the decisions of this Court cited above that exclusion of interest is not an absolute one and it is only a conditional exclusion; that in order to invoke the exclusion clause, the Insurance Company ought to have stated in their written statement that the applicant or the employer had failed to comply with the requirements laid down under the Act; that the Insurance Company should have specified the particulars of the requirement which the applicant had failed to comply under the Act; and that the Insurance Company should have proved their contention also in evidence. The learned Counsel submitted that the same exclusion clause applicable in this case was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Kaleeswari (supra) and that both the decisions were rendered after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harshadbhai (supra), which is relied on by this Court in the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel further cited the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jaya and Others [2026:KER:33981] following the Division Bench Judgment in Kaleeswari (supra). The learned Counsel cited the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Federal Bank Ltd. [2026 (2) KHC SN 27 (Page No.128) (DB)] in which it is held that coverage provisions under the policy are to be interpreted broadly and exclusion clauses are to be read narrowly and that the onus of proving an exception lies on the insurer. The learned Counsel concluded his argument by contending that the decision rendered by this Court on the question of the liability of the Insurance Company to pay interest on the compensation in the impugned judgment is erroneous and the same happened on account of the non-consideration of the aforesaid binding decisions of this Court.

10. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/Insurance Company contended that the issue is well settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harshadbhai (supra) and Kunnel Engineers and Contractors Private Limited v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another [(2023) 15 SCC 776]. Section 4-A(2) of the Employee’s Compensation Act mandates that 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 be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the employee, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the employee to make any further claim. Admittedly, the employer did not tender compensation to the employee even on provisional basis, and hence, in view of the exception clause extracted above, the liability towards payment of interest on the compensation cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company. There is no error apparent on the face of the record to review the impugned judgment. The directions are well supported by the reasons mentioned therein. The learned Counsel prayed to dismiss the Review.

11. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 C 3 contended that the Respondent Nos.2 C 3 are entitled to get the Award amount with interest thereon either from the Respondent No.1 or from the Review Petitioners.

12. I have considered the rival contentions.

13. It is a settled law that non-consideration of a binding precedent is a ground for review. While rendering the impugned Judgment, this Court did not notice the Division Bench Judgments of this Court in Chellappan (supra) and Kaleeswari (supra). This Court followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harshadbhai (supra) and rendered the Judgment. The decision in Harshadbhai (supra) is followed in Kunnel Engineers and Contractors Private Limited (supra). The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 relies on these two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to support the impugned judgment. The decision in Harshadbhai (supra) was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Chellappan (supra) and Kaleeswari (supra). After considering the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court held that the exclusion of interest is not an absolute one and it is a conditional exclusion only. The Division Bench in Kaleeswari (supra) considered the very same exclusion clause which is available in the present case. It is held that in order to invoke the exclusion clause, the Insurance Company ought to have stated in their written statement that the applicant or the employer has failed to comply with the requirements laid down under the Act; that the Insurance Company should have specified the particulars of the requirement which the applicant had failed to comply under the Act and that the Insurance Company should have proved the said contention also in evidence. In the said case, it was found that the Insurance Company had failed to prove the failure on the part of the applicant or the employer to comply with the requirement under the Act and that in such circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability to pay interest on the compensation amount. The decisions in Chellappan (supra) and Kaleeswari (supra) were followed in Jaya (supra). In the present case also, in the written statement filed by the Respondent No.1, there is no averment that either the applicant or the employer failed to comply with the requirements laid down under the Act. There is no evidence also in this regard from the side of the Insurance Company. Before the Employees Compensation Commissioner, nobody was examined from the side of the opposite parties therein. In such case, the aforesaid Division Bench decisions of this Court in Chellappan (supra) and Kaleeswari (supra) and the Single Bench decision in Jaya (supra) are squarely applicable to the present case. Hence, in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the finding of this Court in the impugned Judgment that the Respondent No.1/Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest on the compensation ordered by the Commissioner is unsustainable. It has to be found that the Respondent No.1/Insurance Company is liable to pay interest on the compensation which is liable to be paid by it. The Substantial Question of Law No.1 formulated in the Appeal is to be answered in favour of the Respondents therein.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned Judgment is reviewed and modified, answering the Substantial Question of Law No.1 in favour of the Respondents therein; holding that the Insurance Company/Appellant therein is liable to pay interest on the compensation payable by it; directing the Insurance Company to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till payment/realisation on the compensation amount of Rs.4,54,013/- payable by it; further directing that the Review Petitioners/Opposite Parties Nos.1 C 2 before the Commissioner to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment on the amount of compensation of Rs.1,58,347/- payable by them and vacating the findings and directions to the contrary to the above findings and directions. All other findings and directions in the impugned Judgment are confirmed.

15. The Review Petition is allowed as above.