BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SAPNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurer has directed the instant appeal, before this Court, wherethrough, he assails the award, pronounced by the learned Commissioner, under, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Workmen's Compensation, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, upon petition No. 9/2 of 2011 (5-2013), a) wherein hence compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs.13,28,220,.00 was assessed, vis -vis, the dependants' of the deceased workman, b) AND interest @ 12% per annum, also stood levied thereon, commencing from one month hence elapsing since the date of accident, uptill, its deposit, c) upon the afore failures, hence liability, of, penalty was made fastenable upon, the, derelicting entity/person, d) AND the apposite afore indemnificatory liability(s) also were fastened, upon, the Insurer, of, the vehicle, whereon, the deceased was borne, at the relevant time, of, its hence suffering a mishap. Substantial question of law No.1

(2.) The deceased Pawan Kumar, is not contested by the learned counsel for the Insurer, to, at the relevant time, to be hence employed, by one Meera Devi, arrayed, as respondent No. 1, in the afore petition. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended, with much vigor, before this Court, that, the learned Commissioner, has erroneously applied the notification, of, 22/12/2009, made effective from 18/1/2010, (a) wherethrough in substitution of the hitherto explanation-II, of Sec. 4, embodied in the Workmen's Compensation Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:

(3.) Conspicuously, hence, a sum of Rs.8,000.00 stands mandated, to, be the relevant income of the deceased, and, whereon, the, relevant multiplier, is, enjoined to be applied. The respective applicability, of, the un-amended explanation-II, borne in Sec. 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, or the applicability of the amended thereto, notification made effective from 18/1/2010, (i) is, obviously fathomable only from the date, of, occurrence of the ill-fated mishap, hence involving the vehicle, (ii) whereon the deceased was engaged as a driver, by his employer, impleaded as respondent No. 1, in the afore petition. (iii) Bearing in mind, the afore principle, and, when in place, rather, r the, to contemporaneity, vis -vis, the relevant mishap, taking mandate stands embodied in explanation-II, borne in Sec. 4 of the Act rather was applicable, (iv) AND obviously, the amendment(s) thereto hence occurring subsequent thereto, rather stood rendered inapplicable (v) thereupon, reliance, if any, placed by the learned Commissioner, upon, the substitution(s), made to explanation-II of Sec. 4 of the Act, substitution whereof occurred, hence, imperatively, after the occurrence of the relevant mishap, is, obviously an ill founded reliance thereon, rather the afore mandate in un-amended explanation-II,