FA/715/1989 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 715 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Versus MINOR AJITBHAI GANPATLAL & 5 ========================================= = Appearance : MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Appellant MS TANUJA N KACHCHHI for Respondents No. 1 - 5. NOTICE SERVED for Respondents No. 4, 6, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 08/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT [1] The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant FA/715/1989 2/5 JUDGMENT challenging the judgment and award dated 08.12.1988 passed by the Commissioner & Civil Judge (S.D.), Workmen's Compensation Act, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Workmen Compensation Case No.7 of 1985, whereby the said case came to be allowed and granted the claim of the respondents, original applicants. [2] The facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are as under. [2.1] The respondents, original applicants had filed aforesaid case being Workmen Compensation Case No.7 of 1985 before the Court of the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad against the original opponents, praying for compensation of Rs.50,000/-. In the said case, the appellant – original opponent No.2 filed their reply and prayed for the dismissal of the case with costs. [2.2] The trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, allowed the case of the respondents – original applicants vide the impugned judgment and award. Hence, this appeal. FA/715/1989 3/5 JUDGMENT [3] Heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that the Court below has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/-. It is the case of the appellant that the Court below has appreciated the fact that the accident, which is the cause of action of this application for compensation, occurred on 25.05.1984 and hence the amended Act which came into force with effect from 01.07.1984 could not be applied to this matter. It is the case of the appellant that the Court below has erred in applying the amended provisions of the Workmen's Act, 1923 because the amendment to the Act is subsequent to the cause of action in this case. It is the case of the appellant that the Court below has awarded only a sum of Rs.27,000/- to Rs.30,000/- in view of the provisions of schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 prior to the amendment effective from 01.07.1984. It is the case of the appellant that the Court below not to have arrived at a sum of Rs.71,164.80 paise awardable to the original applicants, respondents herein and awarded Rs.50,000/- because that was the claim in application but awarded only a sum of Rs.27,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. It is the case of the appellant, in view of the aforesaid facts of the case, the present appeal is required to be allowed in the interest of justice. FA/715/1989 4/5 JUDGMENT [4] The appellant – Insurance Company, original opponent No.2 has preferred the present appeal mainly on the ground that the Workmen Compensation Act was amended with effect from 15th September, 1985 whereas the accident which has been referred in the Claim Petition is prior to the date of the amendment i.e. 25th May, 1984 and the Notification was published in 1st July, 1984. For that purpose, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court, in case of Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Valsala K., reported in 2000 A.C.J. 5, wherein it has observed by the Apex Court in para-3, which reads as under. “A four-Judge Bench of this court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC), speaking through Shinghal, J. has held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Thus, the relevant date of determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim”. [5] In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the relevant date of determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim. In FA/715/1989 5/5 JUDGMENT that view of the matter, the liability of the Insurance Company will be Rs.30,000/-. However, it is made clear that the appellant is entitled to recover the said amount from the employment and not from the employees. The amount which has already been deposited, the same is recovered from the employment and not from the employees and if it is not lying with the competent authority, the same will be paid to the Insurance Company and the appellant will be entitled to recover the same from the employment. [2] For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI,J.] vijay