AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Admitted facts of this case are that Jagat Ram was working as a work charge beldar, employed by the appellants. He met with an accident due to flood from left bank of river Satluj on 17.8.2000 at 8 p.m. Factum of accident was reported by Assistant Engineer, B&R Sub Division, HP PWD, Nirmand, District Kullu on 18.8.2000 to the Commissioner under Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). As a result of it Case No. WCA-3 of 2000 came to be registered before the Commissioner. Finally vide impugned award total compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,51,718 was assessed by the Commissioner below, payable by the appellants. This was inclusive of simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent. In case this amount was not deposited within two months of the impugned award, i.e., from 16.8.2001, 50 per cent penalty was also payable.
When this case came up for consideration, the learned Advocate General urged that admittedly accident took place on 17.8.2000, whereas Explanation II to Section 4(1) of the Act, was amended with effect from 8.12.2000 vide Central Act 46 of 2000 and by this amendment for words ''two thousand rupees'' words ''four thousand rupees'' were substituted. Thus according to him, for the purpose of calculation of the compensation in this case figure of Rs. 2,000 is to be taken and its 50 per cent has to be multiplied by the relevant factor, which is 201.66 as per Schedule IV of the Act keeping in view the age of the deceased being 33 years.
So far as submission of Mr. Chandel regarding age and factor is concerned, it was not disputed by Mr. Ghosh. He, however, urged that for calculating the compensation under the provisions of the Act, relevant date would be the date of award and not the date of accident. With a view to support this submission, Mr. Ghosh has placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India, . According to him, this decision completely negatives the submission of learned Advocate General.
After having examined this decision as well as for reasons to be recorded hereinafter submission urged by Mr. Ghosh to uphold the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, cannot be accepted.
It is by now well settled that under the provisions of the Act if an employer is held liable for payment of compensation, he incurs financial liability. Therefore, rights of the parties are fructified on the date of accident. In case legislature has intended to hold an employer liable on the basis of amended provision and/or had intended to make the amended provision applicable retrospectively, nothing prevented it to have made a provision in that behalf in the amended Act itself. It may also be observed that legislature is presumed to be well aware regarding cases pending for grant of compensation on the date when the amendment came into force; still the amending provision has not been made retrospectively applicable. In addition to this liability for payment of compensation on the basis of amended provision by no stretch of imagination can be said to have been made applicable retrospectively.
Reliance placed by Mr. Ghosh on the basis of the decision in the case of Rathi Menon Vs. Union of India, is misplaced. Reason being that the matter in issue and under consideration before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in this case was a claim under the Railways Act, 1989. Payment of compensation under the Act was not the question under consideration nor was the Hon''ble Apex Court called upon to have decided the matter in the context of provisions of the Act. Therefore, observations made in para 33 of this judgment and relied upon by Mr. Ghosh are per incurium. This is an additional ground not to accept his submission.
Besides this, as to on what date the rights of an employer like the appellants in the present case, are fructified is no more res Integra in view of decision of the Supreme Court to which a brief reference will be made hereinafter.
In a three-Judge Bench in Kerala State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Valsala K and Another, , held as under:
(3) A four-Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata 1976 ACJ 141 (SC), speaking through Shinghal, J. has 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.
(4) A two-Judge Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. V.K. Neelakandan C.A. Nos. 16904-06 of 1996; decided on 6.11.1996, however, took the view that Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, 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 accident. The two-Judge Bench in Neelakandan''s case (supra), however, did not take notice of the judgment of the Larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo''s case 1976 ACJ 141 (SC), 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 Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Alavi, , wherein the Full Bench precisely considered the same question and examined both the above noted judgments. It took the view that the injured workman 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 Kerala High Court, to the extent it is in accord with the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata 1976 ACJ 141 (SC), lays down the correct law and we approve it.
(Emphasis added)
(6) Having answered the question posed in the earlier part of the judgment in the negative, we shall take up this batch of special leave petitions for consideration.
(7) In so far as these special leave petitions are concerned, we find that the accident had taken place a long time back. Compensation became payable to the workmen, as it is not disputed that the accidents occurred during the course of employment, as per the law prior to the amendment made in 1995. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, pettiness of the amounts involved in each of the cases and the time that has since elapsed, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders, decided on the basis of the 1995 amendment, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, dismiss the special leave petitions, but after clarifying the law, as noticed above.
Similar view was again taken by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Khajuni Devi and Ors. reported in, (2003) 3 LLJ 566SC , as well as by a four-Judge Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata 1976 ACJ 141 (SC). Two Division Benches of this Court also took this view in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nako alias Naiku Devi and Others and Smt. Malti Devi and Others, and Satya Devi Sharma and Others Vs. Megh Pal and Another,
In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that for the purpose of calculating compensation in the present case, the relevant date is 17.8.2000. Now taking 50 per cent of the maximum monthly wage of Rs. 2,000, then total compensation payable in this case comes to Rs. 2,01,660 and not Rs. 4,51,718. On this amount respondents are entitled for interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on and with effect from 17.8.2000 till the date of its deposit, i.e., 16.7.2003. In addition to this, appellants are also entitled for payment of penalty which is fixed at 50 per cent of the compensation of Rs. 2,01,660. Thus in all the respondents are entitled to Rs. 3,02,490 (Rs. 2,01,660 + Rs. 1,00,830) besides interest.
No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is partly allowed and as a result of it, compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, HP PWD, Rampur Bushahr at Shimla in Case No. WCA-3 of 2000 dated 16.8.2001, in case titled as Jagat Ram v. Assistant Engineer, is modified, holding that compensation payable by appellants to respondents will be Rs. 3,02,490 in all and only the sum of Rs. 2,01,660 shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect from 17.8.2000 to 16.7.2003, i.e., the date of deposit of compensation. Respondents shall equally share the compensation awarded in terms of this judgment. Registry after retaining the amount in terms of this judgment with proportionate interest shall remit the surplus amount, if any, also with proportionate interest to the bank account of the Executive Engineer, Outer Seraj Division, HP PWD, Nirmand, District Kullu, number whereof Mr. Chandel submitted will be furnished within four weeks.
Appeal was taken up for final hearing at the joint request of learned counsel for the parties as also keeping in view the limited controversy involved in it. Accordingly, it has been disposed of finally after it was formally admitted.
No costs.
C.M.P. No. 383 of 2005
No orders in view of the order passed in the main appeal. Disposed of accordingly.