AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—Being aggrieved with the order dated 17-10-2001 passed in Case No. 60/2000/W.C. Act/Fatal/I/B by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Labour Court, Jagdalpur (hereinafter referred to the Labour Court), the appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation.
The facts, briefly stated, are as under:
The appellant/claimant filed an application u/s 22 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to ''the Act 1923'') before the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Labour Court, Jagdalpur, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,11,970/- on account of death of her son which took place in the intervening night of 25-5-99 and 26-5-99. The deceased was the driver of vehicle No. M.P. 23-G/5230 owned by respondent No. 2. It was insured with respondent No. 3. The appellant pleaded that the deceased was aged about 30 years and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month as salary and was also getting Rs. 100/- per day as allowance.
The Labour Court, as per Explanation II of Section 4 of the Act, 1923 held the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs. 2,000/-. Fifty per cent of the said amount, i.e., Rs. 1,000/- was multiplied by the relevant factor of 207.93 as per Section 4(1)(a) and the compensation was worked out as Rs. 2,07,930/-.
Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, raised only one ground. He submitted that "two thousand rupees" existing in Explanation II (supra), was substituted by "four thousand rupees" w.e.f. 8-12-2000 and the Labour Court passed the order on 17-10-2001, therefore, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- which was existing prior to 8-12-2000 should have been taken as Rs. 4,000/- and on that amount the compensation should have been calculated.
On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. G.S. Patel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents, opposed these arguments and submitted that the crucial date would be the date of accident and not the date of passing of the order by the Labour Court.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Labour Court.
In Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata and Another, , the Supreme Court held that "an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman by the 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 the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim".
The aforesaid judgment rendered by the four Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was taken note of in Kerala State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Valsala K and Another, , and on the view taken in the said case, it was further held that if the accident takes place prior to amendment, although decided subsequent to it, that did not attract the enhanced rates introduced by the amendment.
Admittedly, in the present case, the accident took place in the intervening night of 25-5-99 and 26-5-99, i.e., prior to the amendment which was brought w.e.f. 8-12-2000 and the amount mentioned in Explanation II was enhanced to Rs. 4,000/-. Although the adjudication took place after coming into force of the amendment but the amendment so brought after the date of the accident would not be benefiting the claimant. The crucial date is the date of the accident and not that the date of adjudication of the claim because the liability of the employer to pay compensation, if any, arises as soon as personal injury is caused to the workman or his death takes place by the accident out of and in the course of employment.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in this appeal.
The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to the costs.