ORIENTAL INSDURANCE CO LTD Vs. MALATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 7.12.1998 of the learned single Judge of this court in M.A. (F) No. 287 of 1997.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the respondent No. 1, Malati Devi, filed W.C. Case No. 29 of 1993 against the appellant and the respondent No. 2, Pawan Kumar Agarwal, claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, for the death of her husband late Lakhindar Singh and in the judgment and award dated 4.10.1997, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kamrup, Guwahati, held, inter alia, that late Lakhindar Singh died on 22.7.1992 in an accident in the course of his employment under the respondent No. 2, Pawan Kumar Agarwal, while driving the truck No. AMK 3271 which was insured with the appellant insurance company and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,97,060 in favour of the respondent No. 1 calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as amended by the Amendment Act, 1995 and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the said amount of compensation from the date of the filing of the claim case on 30.1.1993. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kamrup, Guwahati, the appellant filed the M.A. (F) No. 287 of 1997 before the learned single Judge contending, inter alia, that the Amendment Act, 1995, was prospective and was not retrospective and, therefore, not applicable to the accident in the present case which took place in the year 1992. By judgment dated 7.12.1998, the learned single Judge while accepting the position that the Amendment Act, 1995, was not applicable to an accident which occurred earlier to the amendments, held that he was not inclined to interfere with the award because some more money should be available to the poor family of the workman and that there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. D. Sur, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K., 2000 ACJ 5 (SC), the Apex Court has held that the injured workman was entitled to get compensation the moment he suffers personal injury of the type contemplated by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and it is the amount of compensation payable on the date of accident and not the amount of compensation payable on account of amendments made in the year 1995 which is relevant. He submitted that since the accident in the present case took place on 22.7.1992, the amount of compensation that was payable has to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act as it stood prior to the amendments made in the year 1995. Mr. Sur argued that the learned single Judge ought not to have refused to interfere with the award on the ground that some more money should be available to the poor family of the workman. He further stated that in a large number of cases now pending before the courts the question arises whether the amendments made in 1995 to the Workmen's Compensation Act would be applicable to accidents which have occurred prior to 15.9.1995 when the Amendment Act of 1995 came into effect and the appellant insurance company will suffer if the compensation is awarded for the accident which occurred prior to 15.9.1995 in view of the amendments made with effect from 15.9.1995.