ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KHAJUNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The only question involved in this appeal is that whether the workman was entitled to the benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as amended by Amendment Act, 1995 (30 of 1995) which came into effect on 15.9.1995. By the Amendment Act the quantum of compensation has been raised. In this particular case the workman died on 9.7.95, that is before, the date on which the Amendment Act came into force. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nagaon, Assam by judgment dated 12 S.96 in case No. NWC 25/95 gave the benefit of the amended provisions of the Act and fixed the compensation at Rs. 2,19,950.00.

(2.) Heard Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Borkataky learned Advocate for the respondents.

(3.) Mr. Dutta urges that as the amendment was not retrospective in nature the benefit of the Amendment Act cannot be given to the heirs of the deceased workman and in this connection he relies on AIR 1982 SC 836 (Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Co.Ltd.). This was a case where the benefit was made available to a person after the amendment of the M.V. Act.By the Amendmenet Act of 56/69 the statutory liability of the insurer was increased from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 50,000 in case of a bus and it came into effect from 2nd March, 1970. The accident occurred on 5.4.70 and the accident was after coming into force of the Amendment Act. So that question as a matter of tact did not arise for determination or decision before the Apex Court. The Apex court held that the liability of the insurer to pay a claim under motor accident policy arises on the occurrence of the accident. The Apex Court did not decide the prospectivity or retraspectivity of the Act. The next case relied on by Mr. Dutta is AIR 1964 SC 1511 (Mst. Kafiquennessa and another v.Lal Bahadur Chetri and another) where it has been stated that where vested rights are affected by any statutory provision, the said provision, should normally be constructed to be prospective in operation and not retrospective, unless the provision in question relates merely to a procedural matter. The Legislature in competent to take away vested rights by means of retrospective legislation.