AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chidananda Ullal, J.—This appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge the order dated 9-9-1997 in Case No. WCA:CR:No. 28 of 1995, passed by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, Sub-Division I, Bangalore. In passing the said order, the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner had awarded Rs. 2,21,370/- as compensation payable to the L,Rs of the deceased respondents 2 and 3.
The appellant-insurance company is represented by the learned Counsel Sri S.P. Shankar. On the other side, the respondent 1-owner is represented by Sri Chennaraya Reddy, whereas, respondents 2 and 3 contesting respondents are represented by Sri T.V. Ramesh.
Sri S.P. Shankar while urging the grounds made out in the appeal memorandum, more specifically, the ground No. 2, had taken me through the impugned order under challenge. It was his argument that the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, Sub-Division I, Bangalore, henceforth in brief referred to as ''WCC'' had made mistake in the matter of the application of the law u/s 4(1)(a) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, henceforth the ''Act'', inasmuch as he had taken the monthly wages of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month and further by taking one-half thereof, multiplied the same by the relevant factor 221.37 and thus arrived at the figure 2,21,370. It was pointed out by him that since the accident in question had taken place on 21-4-1994 and that since the amended provision to Section 4 came to be amended only on 15-9-1995, the WCC would have calculated the compensation as per the original provision in Section 4 as it stood before amendment and that if that was done by the WCC that way, he would have taken the monthly wages of the deceased at Rs. 1,0007- per month and that thereafter he would have taken 40% thereof to be multiplied by the said factor 221.37. He further submitted that was the position if that the awardable compensation by the WCC would have been Rs. 88,5487- only and not beyond.
In support of his argument that the amended provision in Section 4 of the Act was not applicable and that what was applicable was the provision to Section 4 as stood earlier to the amendment, he had cited reported decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Valsala K and Another, .
Therefore, he prayed that the instant appeal be allowed in part to restrict the award to Rs. 88,548/- together with interest at 6% per annum.
The learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 2 and 3, Sri N. Gopalakrishna appearing along with T.V. Ramesh at the outset argued that the appellant-insurance company could not maintain an appeal when it had challenged only the quantum part of the impugned award. In support of his argument, he had also cited before me a decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohammed Haneef, and further an unreported decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in M.F.A. No. 4455 of 1998, DD: 10-10-2000. According to him if at all the appellant-insurance company had to challenge the impugned order insofar as the same related to quantum of the sum awarded, the appellant-insurance company would have filed a writ petition and not an appeal as it did before this Court. That argument was advanced by Sri Gopalakrishna on the ground that, that the grounds available to the insurance company are limited to the grounds made u/s 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it was also pointed out by him in this context that the appellant-insurance company did not file an application u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim of the respondents 2 and 3 on other grounds, no matter that the respondent 1-owner remained absent before the WCC upon filing vakalath on his behalf. He also added that in the instant appeal there is no point of law involved to challenge the impugned award passed by the WCC.
In the light of the above submissions made by the rival parties, I have gone through the impugned order under challenge. I have also gone through the decision cited by the learned Counsels appearing for both the sides.
Though it was vehemently argued by Sri N. Gopalakrishna that the appellant-insurance company would not have challenged the impugned order to challenge the quantum part of the award, the argument advanced by Sri Gopalakrishna is not acceptable to me in view of the circumstances that the WCC admittedly applied the wrong provision of law to the facts of the case before him. Admittedly, what was applicable to the case of the respondents 2 and 3 was the provision in Section 4 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act as it stood earlier to the amendment of that provision earlier to 15-9-1995.
It is not in dispute before me that the provision u/s 4 as it stood earlier to 15-9-1995 was that the monthly wages had to be taken as Rs. 1,000/- per month and that for the purpose of working out the compensation 40% thereof had to be taken in case of death of a workman to be multiplied by the relevant factor. Admittedly, if the provision u/s 4 had to be taken as above earlier to amendment of the provision in question on 15-9-1995, the compensation awardable had to be Rs. 88,548/- as set out in ground No. 2 of the appeal memorandum (40% of 1,000 multiplied by factor 221.37). Even in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board, supra, one Sri Shankar had cited before me, it is clear therefrom that when the accident had taken place prior to amendment of Section 4 in the year 1995, the claim had to be worked out in accordance with said provisions as they stood earlier to the amendment. It is relevant to quote what the Supreme Court observed in para 5 of the said decision. To quote the same, the same reads as hereunder:
"Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Full Bench of the 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 the 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 Vs. Srinivas Sabata and Another, lays down the correct law and we approve it".
As I see emphasis in the argument of learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, of course, based on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court was to the effect that it is not available for the insurance company to challenge the award on the point of quantum. That argument of Sri Gopalakrishna would have been well-received by me if the appeal by the insurance company was merely on the ground of quantum alone but unfortunately for the respondents 2 and 3, the argument of Sri Shankar appearing for the appellant-insurance company was that, that the WCC had faltered in the matter of application of the law to the facts of the ease before me.
In view of the circumstances that the Supreme Court had held as above, in the above case i.e., Kerala State Electricity Board, supra, I feel that there is a question of law involved in the instant case and as such, the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company has to be entertained, no matter that, in that process, the quantum of the award in a way came to be challenged indirectly.
In that view, matter merits consideration. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed in part and the impugned award passed by the WCC awarding compensation of Rs. 2,21,378/- or to round it off at Rs. 2,21,370/- together with interest at 6% per annum stands modified to Rs. 88,548/- with 6% interest per annum.
If this Court were to accept the argument as above advanced by Sri Gopalakrishna, this Court had to be simply an on-looker and silent spectator to confirm the illegal award of the WCC to the peril of the appellant-insurance company. In this context, I have to observe here that appellant-insurance company is a Public Corporation and its money belongs to Society at large and as such, Courts have to safeguard its money to the last rupee with care and duty consciousness, of course within the four comers of law. This is how I have seen things in repelling the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants in this case.
In view of the circumstances that the appellant-insurance company had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,21,370/-. Registry is directed to pay the respondents 2 and 3 the award amount as hereinabove modified together with interest at 6%, of course, after giving deduction to what respondents 2 and 3 had already withdrawn. The Registry is also directed to refund the excess amount if any to the appellant-insurance company at the earliest.