Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2548 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Company Limited v. Gulli

2017-11-21

INDERJEET SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Inderjeet Singh, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 27.02.1998 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District, Jaipur in case no. W.C.C.F. 10/1993. 2. This court vide order dated 07.11.2017 has framed following substantial question of law in this appeal:- "(i) Whether the Commissioner has assessed the liability of compensation according to the Amendment Act, 1995 whereas accident took place during 1991, application for compensation was filed in 1993 and thus, the assessment so made by the Commissioner according to the amended Act, 1995 is not illegal? (ii) Whether the rate of interest should not be more than 6% p.a. on the sum of Award as per the provisions of the Act because the accident took place during 1991?" 3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants-respondent no.1 to 4 filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner against the appellant-Insurance company and the respondent no.5 stating therein that late Mala Ram was working as cleaner on the bus of non-applicant no.5 insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and while discharging his duties for benefit and use of the owner of the bus, died in an accident on 29.06.1991. Thus, the deceased Mala Ram was workman in the light of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,33,626/-. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company filed reply to the claim application before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and denied the averments of the application made by the claimants. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident occurred on 29.06.1991, whereas the Commissioner while deciding issues no.2 and 3 wrongly calculated the compensation as per amendment made in Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, effective from 15.09.1995. Counsel further submits that the Commissioner should have awarded the compensation according to provision Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as of 29.06.1991 i.e. on the date of accident. Counsel further submits that the Commissioner has wrongly awarded interest at the rate of 12% whereas it should have been 6% as per provisions of Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 6. Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the Commissioner. 7. Heard counsel for the parties. 8. It is not disputed by the parties that the amendment was made in Section 4 & 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act effective 15.09.1995. 6. Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the Commissioner. 7. Heard counsel for the parties. 8. It is not disputed by the parties that the amendment was made in Section 4 & 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act effective 15.09.1995. Prior to the amendment the provisions of Section 4 Explanation II which is relevant for the present appeal, reads 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 forty percent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of twenty thousand rupees, whichever is more; (b) Where permanent total disablement results from the injury An amount equal to fifty percent of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of twenty-four thousand rupees, whichever is more; Explanation II. - Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed one thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of Clause (a) and Clause (b) shall be deemed to be one thousand rupees only, 9. Section 4A (3) prior to the amendment made in the year 15.09.1995 reads as under:- "(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 may direct that, in additional to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum on the amount due together with, if in the opinion of the Commissioner there is no justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent. of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty." 10. In the present matter, the issue under consideration whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, amended provisions of Act are applicable or the provisions prevailing on the date of accident are applicable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kerala State Electricity Board and Another v. Valsala K. and Another reported in 1999 (8) SCC 254 , has held as under:- "4. A two judge Bench of this Court in The New India Assurance Company Limited v. V.K. Neelakandan and Others etc, etc.--Civil Appeal Nos. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kerala State Electricity Board and Another v. Valsala K. and Another reported in 1999 (8) SCC 254 , has held as under:- "4. A two judge Bench of this Court in The New India Assurance Company Limited v. V.K. Neelakandan and Others etc, etc.--Civil Appeal Nos. 16904-16906 of 1996, decided on 6.11.1996, however, took the view that Workmen's Compensation Act, being a special legislation for the benefit of the Workmen, the benefit as available on the date of adjudication should be extended to the workmen and not the compensation which was payable on the date of the accident. Two judge Bench in Neelakandan's case (supra), however, did not take notice of the judgment of the larger Bench in Pratap Naraian Singh Deo's case, as it presumably was not brought to the notice of their Lordships. Be that as it may, in view of the categorical law laid down by the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo's case the view expressed by the two judge Bench in Neelakandan's case is not correct. 5. Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, (1998) 1 KLT 951 wherein the Full Bench precisely considered the same question and examined both the above noted judgments. It took the view that the injured workmen becomes entitled to get compensation the moment he suffers personal injuries of the types contemplated by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and it is the amount of compensation payable on the date of the accident and not the amount of compensation payable on account of the amendment made in 1995, which is relevant. The decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, to the extent it is in accord with the judgment of the larger bench of this Court in Pratap Singh Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Anr. (supra) lays down the correct law and we approve it. 11. Thus, the Amendment provisions of Section 4 and 4A as amended on 15.09.1995 regarding the amount of compensation and rate of interest are not applicable to the accident which occurred prior to the date of amendment in the Act. (supra) lays down the correct law and we approve it. 11. Thus, the Amendment provisions of Section 4 and 4A as amended on 15.09.1995 regarding the amount of compensation and rate of interest are not applicable to the accident which occurred prior to the date of amendment in the Act. Thus, the award passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Jaipur District, Jaipur deserves to be modified in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kerala State Electricity Board (supra). There is no dispute between the parties that if calculated according to the unamended provisions of the Act the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 89,084/- and along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of accident. 12. The award passed by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation stands accordingly modified. 13. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.