LAXMIBAI Vs. MANAGER VIJAYANAND ROADLINES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are the claimants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming compensation for the accident occurred to one Suresh Ghodke, son of appellant No. 1 and husband of appellant No. 2.

(2.) THE only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal is that the appellants are entitled for compensation as per the Amendment Act introduced in the year 1995 to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The Commissioner taking into consideration that the death is prior to the Amendment Act has awarded the compensation in accordance with law that was prevailing as on the date of the accident. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Commissioner is not right in awarding compensation under the unamended Act in view of the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Venkataraju, 2000 ACJ 984 (Karnataka ). This court in the above decision has held that the amendment introduced by substituting the words 'rs. 2,000' in place of Rs. 1,000 is per se a part of the proce dural law and evidence and, therefore, it is retrospective in operation. But, the Apex court in case of Kerala State Electricity board v. Valsala K. , 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), has held the contrary. The question that was considered by the Supreme Court in this case is: whether the amendment of sections 4 and 4-A of Workmen's Compensation act, 1923 made by Act No. 30 of 1995 with effect from 15. 9. 1995 enhancing the amount of compensation and the rate of interest, would be attracted to cases where the claims in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident caused during the course of employment, took place prior to 15. 9. 1995? The said question has been answered by the Apex court accepting the view expressed by the full Bench of the Kerala High Court as follows:

(3.) IN view of the above said decision of the Supreme Court, the law declared by this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Venkataraju, 2000 ACJ 984 (Karnataka), is no longer a good law.