Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3188 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Company v. Monorama

2006-12-08

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the judgment dated 21.12.1996 passed by the Workman Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur whereby he has granted a compensation of Rs. 2,71,135.50/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant's husband Shri Rajendra Singh was working as a driver on a Bus of Shri Surendra Kumar. On 25.11.1993, when her husband was driving the said bus, it met with an accident. And consequently, he expired. Since the family had lost its sole bread earner, claimants filed a petition for claim before the learned Commissioner. Vide order dated 21.12.1996, the learned Commissioner granted a compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the date of accident was 25.11.1993. Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short) was not amended till 15.9.1995. However, while passing the impugned judgment, the learned Commissioner has given the benefit of the amended Section 4, whereas amount of compensation was to be determined on the basis of un-amended Section 4 of the Act. Hence, he has committed a grave illegality. 4. On the other hand Mr. D.K. Bhardwaj has strenuously argued that it is the law which is applicable on the date of passing of the judgment which is relevant and not the law on the date of the accident. Since the impugned judgment was passed in the year 1996, by when Section 4 was already amended, hence the learned Commissioner was justified in granting the benefit of the amended Section 4 of the Act to the claimant-respondent. He has, thus, supported the impugned judgment. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. 6. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that the provisions of the Act have to be applied as existing on the date of accident and not as existing on the date of the passing of the order. The said position has been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Vasala K., 2000 (1) T.A.C. 6 (SC) . The said position has been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Vasala K., 2000 (1) T.A.C. 6 (SC) . As early as in 1976 in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, 1976 (1) SCC 289 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly held that an employer becomes liable to pay the compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman by an accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of accident and not the date of the adjudication of the claim. Prior to the amendment, Sections 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c) were as under:- 4. Amount of compensation. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act. the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely: (a) where death results from the injury, an amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of fifty thousand rupees, whichever is more; Explanation I. - For the purpose of clause (a) and clause (b), "relevant factor" in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fall due; Explanation II. - Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed two thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be two thousand rupees only; However, after the amendment Section 4(1) (a) has been amended as under: 4. Amount of compensation. - Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed two thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be two thousand rupees only; However, after the amendment Section 4(1) (a) has been amended as under: 4. Amount of compensation. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely: (a) where death results from the injury, an amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of eight thousand rupees, whichever is more; Explanation I. - For the purpose of clause (a) and clause (b), "relevant factor" in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due; Explanation II. - Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed four thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be four thousand rupees only; 7. Since the accident had occurred on 25.11.1993, i.e., prior to the amendment of Section 4 of the Act, the unamended law should have been applied by the learned Commissioner. However, the learned Commissioner has applied the amended law. Hence, clearly the impugned order is unsustainable. According to the unamended Act the maximum wages to be taken was Rs. 1,000/-. According to Section 4(1)(b) where the permanent disability results from injury an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the workman shall be multiplied by the relevant factor. Applying the said formula and taking the monthly wages as Rs. 1,000/- the compensation needs to be calculated as under: 1500 x 1/2 x 216.91 = 1,62,682.50/-. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.3.2004 is modified to the extent that the compensation amount is reduced from Rs. 2,71,137.50/- to Rs. 1,62,682.50/-. In case the compensation amount has not been disbursed so far to the claimant, the learned Commissioner is directed to disburse the amount of Rs. 1,62,682.50/. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.3.2004 is modified to the extent that the compensation amount is reduced from Rs. 2,71,137.50/- to Rs. 1,62,682.50/-. In case the compensation amount has not been disbursed so far to the claimant, the learned Commissioner is directed to disburse the amount of Rs. 1,62,682.50/. But, in case the compensation award has already been disbursed to the claimant during the pendency of this appeal, then the Insurance Company is free to recover the difference of Compensation amount including the interest from the claimant. With these observations this appeal is allowed.Appeal Allowed by Modifying Award. *******