FAO No. 540 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 540 of 1986 Decided on : 07 -11-2008 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Appellant VERSUS Kalu Ram and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. V.Ram Sarup, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Jasbir Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. MAHESH GROVER, J The appeal is directed against the order dated 27.3.86 by which the respondent was granted compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act. The respondent Kalu Ram preferred an application against M/s Garg and Company Cotton Factory, Dabwali, District Sirsa and United India Insurance Company (the appellant herein) on 1st October, 1984 under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act claiming that his son aged 18 years was working with M/s Garg & Co., and he died as a result of electric shock in the factory. It was claimed that he was drawing salary more than Rs. 400/- per month. The Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, Hissar concluded that the claim application deserves to succeed and awarded a sum of Rs. 39,066/- to the claimants vide his impugned award dated 27.3.86. The accident in which the deceased lost his life occurred on FAO No. 540 of 1986 2 13.3.1984. The only question that has been raised in the present appeal that according to the Schedule to Workmen Compensation Act which existed on the date of accident in the year 1984 (13th March, 1984) the claimants at best could have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 21,000/- if the salary was in the range of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/-. Since the salary of the deceased was Rs. 400/-, he necessarily was entitled to compensation of Rs. 21,000/- only. The Schedule was however amended on 1st July, 1984 in which the amount was enhanced from Rs. 21,000/- to Rs. 39,066/- which ultimately was awarded to the respondents. The sole contention that has been raised in the present appeal is that the cause of action accrued to the claimants on 13th March, 1984 when the accident took place and the provisions of the old Schedule held the field. The benefit of the amended provisions of the Schedule could not have been given to the claimants. Reliance was placed on 1970 ACJ 401, 1972 ACJ 187, 1985 ACJ 832, 1985 ACJ (Allahabad) 634 and 2008 Labour Industrial Cases 520 titled as 'United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shakura Ishaq Bhaya & Anr.' In case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) it was observed as under:- “Thus, I see considerable force in view of Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act which I have set out earlier and it is true that the accident took place on 26-12-1991 which is prior to amendment in 1995. After 1995 the Act has been amended and compensation has been given at the rate of 50% but the said provision is not applicable in the present case and therefore in FAO No. 540 of 1986 3 view of existing provision of Section 4(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I accept the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Company that the applicants- respondents herein are entitled to compensation at the rate of 40% and not 50%.” The law is consistent on this subject that the cause of action corresponds to the claim under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act on the date when the accident takes place and the claim is to be determined accordingly and not as per the law which existed on the date of the decision/award. There is thus substance in what learned counsel for the appellant has stated. It is, therefore, held that the respondents were in fact entitled to compensation according to the existing Schedule in March, 1984 when the accident took place and the cause of action accrued to the claimants and that the amended provisions will not apply. However, considering the fact that the accident took place in the year 1984 and that more than 24 years have elapsed since then and that it would be extremely harsh if any adverse direction is given. I am of the considered opinion that the amount which has already been awarded to the respondents does not warrant any interference at this stage and the amount deposited in the Fixed Deposit Receipt pursuant to the order dated 25.9.1986 be released to the respondents. Disposed of as accordingly. November 7 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge