Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1658 (RAJ)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Arjun

2011-08-09

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2011
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 7th December, 1999 whereby the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Jaipur District Jaipur passed an award to the tune of Rs. 89,424/- along with the interest @ 12 per annum thereon, in favour of the claimant respondent No. 1 and against the non-claimant appellant. 2. The facts of the case, in brief are thus: "That on 29.3.1992 the injured Arjun was employed as driver of the tractor No. RJ 14 R belonging to the respondent No. 2 which was insured with the appellant insurance company. It is stated that the said tractor met with an accident resulting in injuries to the claimant and he suffered amputation of his hand which was graved by thresher attached with the said tractor. The respondent No.1 filed a claim petition stating that he was getting Rs. 1200/- per month salary and D.A./at the rate of Rs. 20/- per day and thus he was earning Rs. 1800/- per month. The age of the claimant was 30 years at the time of accident. The claimant claimed amount of Rs.1,87,182 as compensation by filing the claim." 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions before this court: firstly, that the date of accident was 29.3.1992 when the unamended Act was in force. The Act was amended in the year 1995. However, while deciding the case, the learned Commissioner has given the benefit of the amended law, where the case was covered by the unamended law. Therefore the learned Commissioner has erred in applying the correct law. Secondly that according to the unamended law, the rate of interest was 6%. However while applying the amended law, the learned Commissioner has granted the benefit of 12% rate of interest. According to the learned counsel, in case the unamended law is applied, then compensation of Rs. 62,394/- is to be paid to the claimant respondent No. 1 being 60% of Rs. 1,03,990/- on account of loss of earning capacity as mentioned in S.No. 4 of Part II of Schedule I, whereas the learned Commissioner has granted the compensation of Rs. 89,424/- alongwith 12% interest. 4. On the other hand, Mr. 62,394/- is to be paid to the claimant respondent No. 1 being 60% of Rs. 1,03,990/- on account of loss of earning capacity as mentioned in S.No. 4 of Part II of Schedule I, whereas the learned Commissioner has granted the compensation of Rs. 89,424/- alongwith 12% interest. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the claimant respondent No. 1 has argued that it is the law, which is applicable on the date of the decision, which is to be applied and not the law on the date of the accident. Moreover, according to him, difference between the compensation calculated under the unmaended law and the amended law is a small one, hence the impugned award being just and proper deserves to be upheld. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 6. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that the provisions of the Act have to be applied as it existed on the date of the accident and not as it exists on the date of the passing of the award. This position has been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board and Another vs. Vasala K. & Another reported in 2000 (1) TAC 6 (SC). Therefore, the relevant date for determination of the compensation is the date of accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim. Similar views have also been taken by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Dhirendra Singh and others (SBCMA No. 314/2001, decided on 1.12.2006). Since the accident took place on 29.3.1992, obviously the unamended Section 4(i) (b) would be applicable for computation of the compensation. However, the learned Commissioner has applied the amended law. Hence clearly the compensation has been miscalculated. Taking the unamended law as the basis for computation, the compensation comes out to be Rs. 62,394/- (Rs. 500 x 207.98 (this factor is applied as he was 30 years of age) = 1,03,990 and 60% of it comes to be Rs. 62394). 8. Similarly, the 12% rate of interest could not be imposed upon the Insurance Company as according to the unamended law, the rate of interest is only 6%. 62,394/- (Rs. 500 x 207.98 (this factor is applied as he was 30 years of age) = 1,03,990 and 60% of it comes to be Rs. 62394). 8. Similarly, the 12% rate of interest could not be imposed upon the Insurance Company as according to the unamended law, the rate of interest is only 6%. Therefore, in the impugned award, the learned Commissioner has wrongly directed that the compensation should be paid with interest @ 12% per annum. It is relevant to mention here that this Court on 7.2.2000 directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 62,304 along with 6% interest for payment to the claimants within a period of one month from the date of passing of the order and subject to such deposit the operation of the award passed by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation was stayed. This order dated 7.2.2000 was confirmed by the order dated 12.2.2008 till disposal of the appeal. In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part and the impugned award needs to be modified. 10. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award dated 7.12.1999 is modified to the extent that the claimant respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to receive compensation to the tune of Rs. 62,394/- along with interest @ 6% per annum only from the appellant. The appellant need not to deposit the rest of the amount of compensation under the award. The rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. 11. There shall be no order as to costs.