IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.NO.772 OF 2005. Date:22.10.2009. Between:- The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Guntur. ..Appellant And Shaikh Abdul Rahman and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.01.2003 in W.C.Case No.10/1999(F) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, wherein the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,08,445/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing the petition i.e., 01.03.1996. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants. None appeared for respondent No.6-owner. It is stated that respondent Nos.1 and 3 died and there are no legal representatives to be brought on record. 3. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of death of Shaik Nagulmeera, who worked as a Cleaner of Lorry bearing No.AAK-8154 along with respondent No.6 and died in the accident that occurred on 03.09.1993, in course of his employment. It is not disputed that respondent No.6 is owner of the said lorry and deceased was employed as cleaner therein and he died in course of employment. It is also not disputed that the said lorry was insured with the appellant/insurer and the policy was in operation by the date of accident. The Tribunal, while calculating the compensation, has taken into consideration 50% of the wages though noting that the wages of the compensation is to be calculated taking the percentage only at 40% since the accident occurred in the year 1993, which was prior to the amendment came into force on 15.09.1995. Though the amendment is prospective in operation, the Tribunal sought to apply the amended provision to the present case, where the accident occurred prior to the amendment, by adopting a beneficial interpretation. When a statute prescribed certain percentage of wages to be taken into consideration, while computing the compensation, the Tribunal ought to have applied the provisions of the statute, which were applicable to the case on hand, instead of adopting the amended provision, which came into force subsequent to the date of the accident. The Tribunal is, therefore, not justified in taking the wages at 50% as per the amended provision. By taking the percentage of the wages at 40% as per the statutory provision that was in existence as on the date of incident and applying the multiplying factor of 216.91 and taking the wages of Rs.1,000/- and the age of the deceased as 25 years as mentioned in the Post Mortem report, the compensation payable works out to Rs.86,760/-. The Tribunal also awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing the application i.e., 01.03.1996. Since the claimants have already withdrawn the amount of compensation deposited by the insurer as per the Award, and also considering the fact that the claimants are all poor persons, it is considered neither just nor proper to order recovery of any amount from them. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd October, 2009 AMD