ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. B SINGARI GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two miscellaneous appeals are before us pursuant to a reference made by a single Bench of this court. The appeals arise out of orders passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 awarding compensation to the claimants for the injuries sustained by them in two separate motor accidents. The Commissioner, it appears, has determined the compensation on the basis of the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as amended by Act 30 of 1985 no matter the accidents in question had taken place earlier to the commencement of the amending Act. The insurance company has assailed the said orders, inter alia, contending that the very basis on which the amounts have been determined by the Commissioner was erroneous, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala k. , 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), where the court has authoritatively held that the amending Act was only prospective in its operation.

(2.) WHEN the appeals came up for hearing, before the single Bench the maintainability thereof was questioned by counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants. It was argued that the decisions of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Raja naika, 1992 ACJ 521 (Karnataka) and oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Veronica obrin, 1993 ACJ 758 (Karnataka), clearly declared that appeals by insurance companies were not maintainable except on defences that were otherwise open to such companies under section 149 (2) of the motor Vehicles Act. It was contended that the question whether or not the Amending Act 30 of 1995 was applicable to the claims made by the respondents eventually made a difference only insofar as the determination of the quantum of compensation was concerned. The insurance company could not, however, maintain an appeal insofar as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner was concerned. The single Bench considered it proper to make a reference to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the question raised before him. That is precisely how the present appeals have been placed before us for hearing.

(3.) APPEARING for the appellant insurance companies, Mr. S. P. Shankar and Mr. M. Sown Raju submitted that the reference made by the single Bench could be confined to the question whether or not the insurance companies can maintain an appeal against the orders made by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation act as regards the quantum of compensation awarded by him. It was urged that the supreme Court had in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhushan Sachdeva, 2002 acj 333 (SC), examined a similar question in the context of the provisions of section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court was in that case examining whether an insurance company could be said to be an aggrieved person under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act so as to entitle it to prefer an appeal against an award made by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal having regard to the fact that the insured had not preferred any appeal against the award made by the Tribunal. In the opinion of the insurance company the award made by the tribunal was in violation of the principles of natural justice, unjust and arbitrary, but since no appeal could be maintained by it against the award, it had chosen to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the High court under Article 227 of the Constitution and seek an interim stay of the award pending disposal of its petition. The High court had declined to make any interim order. It was against the refusal of an interim stay that the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court by special leave. The apex Court held that the appellant was not correct in assuming that it had no right of appeal before the High Court under section 173 of the Act. The court held that so long as the insured had not challenged the award passed by the Tribunal and so long as the liability would fall only on the insurance company, it would be inequitable to deny to the insurance company a remedy by way of an appeal. The court observed: