COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION Vs. SATISH SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI S.V. Dandvate for the appellant, New India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Insurance Company.)

(2.) THE claim was heard by learned Commissioner who passed the award in favour or respondents 1,2, and 3 granting compensation of Rs. 63,808/ - payable by the insurance company to them along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and penalty at the rate of 10% in the event of default in depositing the amount of compensation within prescribed time limit. The said award is being challenged by the insurance company in this appeal.

(3.) IN Padma Shrinivasan's (supra) Supreme Court held that the retrospective ability depends on the cause of action so far as statutory liability of the insurer is concerned and the liability of insurer must be determined by the application of law introduced by the amendment which had come into force before the date of the accident. In the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gangabai (supra) Single Bench of this Court held that he settled view of this Court is that Section 92 -A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is not retrospective in its operation and will not apply to pending cases. The Single Bench of this Court has considered the judgment of this Court in the matter of Karuram v. Omprakash ( : AIR 1989 MP 105) and Shamsher Khan's case (1989 A. C. J. 394). The Court has also considered the judgment of this Court in the matter Bhagchand & another v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (1989 A. C. J. 495). In the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nafis Begum (supra) the Full Bench of this Court has held that rights and liabilities under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 arise on happening of the accident and not on any subsequent date. It held that filing of the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal has no relevance with regard to the rights and liabilities of the parties which should be governed by the state of law existing on the date of the accident and not on the state of law existing on the date of filing of the claim petition or of the filing of the appeal in the case. It has been further held by the Full Bench that if the rights and liabilities of the parties were held to depend on any change of law effected subsequent to the accident, discriminatory, situation is likely to arise between the parties involved in accidents happening even on the same date. The date of accident should, therefore, be taken as date of application of the state of law existing then. The Full Bench further held that the legislative intent is clear from the express language used in the Act and there is no scope for any legal dynamism of idea of progressive social welfare involved in determining the date from which Section 92 -A is to take effect. One has to look merely as to what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no scope for equity or progressive nature of the legislative amendment coming into play. There is no scope for reading into the amending Act something about which it is unambiguous and unequivocal. Nothing is to -be implied. One has only to look fairly at the language used.