NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation commissioner Mangalore, in WCA/cr-54/98/nf dated 21-12-1999. The respondent-workmen filed a claim petition before the commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Labour Officer (for short the 'commissioner') seeking for compensation under Sections 3 and 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short the Act' ). Notice was issued by the Commissioner and the respondent entered appearance. Matter was contested and after contest the commissioner passed an order ordering compensation of Rs. 69,716/- together with interest at 12% payable by the insurance company from the date of accident till the date of deposit of the amount before the Commissioner.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. 3 Appellant has questioned the impugned order by contending that the Commissioner failed to apply the law laid down by this Court in M/s. NAVASHANKAR TRANSPORT vs DHAKAPPA. It is contended that the commissioner has applied the amended provision in the matter of compensation. The amended provision is not applicable since the accident has occurred prior to the date of amendment. In support of his case learned Counsel for the appellant also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of kerala STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs VALASALA and judgment of this Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE Co. Ltd. , vs kuppuswamy. Per contra, counsel for the respondent contends that the matter. is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of new INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY vs V. K. NEELAKANDAN AND others. He also relies on the reported judgment of this Court in the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. , vs SRI venkataraju admittedly, an actionable accident has occurred and a claim petition was filed before the Commissioner under Section 3 of the act. The Commissioner has framed five issues. The first issue is with regard to the entitlement of compensation in terms of Section

(3.) AFTER noticing the material facts, the Commissioner has answered the same in favour of the respondent. The said finding is a finding of fact with which I would not interfere in this appeal under Section 30 of the Act. In so far as issue No. 2 is concerned, the Commissioner has again on facts has ruled that the respondent was getting a monthly income of Rs. 1,500 and daily batta of Rs. 30/- from the employer. I do not want to interfere with this finding of fact in this appeal.