KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.versusVALSALA K. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

             KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.                                A
                                    v.
                      V ALSALA K. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

                              SEPTEMBER 16, 1999

             [DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND                            B
                           R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.]


          Labour Law:


-         Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923:

          Ss.4 and 4A-Amendment to by Act 30of1995-Enhancing amount of
    compensation and rate of interest w.e.f 15. 9.1995-Applicability ofAmendment
                                                                                    c

    to cases arising out of accidents caused prior to 15. 9, 1995-Held, relevant
    date for determination of rate of compensation is the date of accident and


-   not the date ofadjudication ofclaim-However, in the instant matters, keeping D
    in view the particular facts and circumstances of the cases, pettiness of the
    amounts involved and the time that has since lapsed, the impugned order
    passed on the basis of the 1995 amendment are not interfered with.

          Pratap Narain Singh Dea v. Srinivas Sabata and another, (1976)1           E
    sec 289, relied on.
          United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, (1998) 1KLT951, approved.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No.
    21613of1997 Etc.
                                                                                    F
         From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.97 of the Kerala High Court in
    M.F.A No. 570of1997.

          P. Krishnamoorthy, T.G.N. Nair, Romy Chacko, Ms. V. Mohana, Ramesh
    Babu M.R., Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, B.V. Deepak, K.M.K.
    Nair, S.K. Paul, Salil Paul and Ms. Indira Sawhney for the appearing parties.   G
         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         The neat question involved in these special leave petitions is whether,
    the amendment of Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act,           H
                                        657
    658                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 1923, made by Act No. 30of1995 with effect from 15.9.1995, enhancing the
    amount of compensation and rate of interest, would be attracted to cases
                                                                                            •.:
    where the claims in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from
    an accident caused during the course of employment, took place prior to
    15.9.1995?                                                                          ,
B         Various High Courts in the country, while dealing with the claim for
    compensation under the WorRmen's Compensation Act have uniformly taken
    the view that the relevant date for determining the rights and liabilities of the
    parties is the date of the accident.

          A four judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivs
C Sabata and Anr., [1976] I SCC 289 speaking through Shinghal. J. has held ti)at
    an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal
    injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose out of and in
                                                                                            -
    the course of employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the
    rate of compensation, is the date of the accident and not the dat.e of
D   adjudication of the claim.

          A two judge Bench of this Court in The New India Assurance Company
    Limited v. V.K. Neelakandan and Ors. etc. etc.--Civil Appeal Nos. 16904-
    16906of1996, decided on 6.11.1996, however, took the view that Workmen's
    Compensation Act, being a special legislation for the benefit of the Workmen,
E   the benefit as available on the date of adjudication should be extended to. the
    workmen and not the compensation which was payable on the date of the
    accident. Two judge Bench in Neelakandan 's case (supra), however, did not
    take notice of the judgment of the larger Bench in Pratap Naraian Singh
    Deo 's case, as it presumably was not brought to the notice of their Lordships.
    Be that as it may, in view of the categorical law laid down by the larger Bench
F   in Pratap Narain Singh Deo 's case the view expressed by the two judge
    Bench in Neelakandan 's case is not correct.

          Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Full Bench of
    the Kerala High Court ill United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, (1998) 1
G   KL T 951 (FB) wherein the Full Bench precisely considered the same question
                                                                                            .....
    and examined both the above noted judgments. It took the view that the
    injured-workmen becomes entitled to get compensation the moment he suffers
    personal injuries of the types contemplated by the provisions of the Workmen's _
    Compensation Act and it is the amount of compensation payable on-the date
    of the accident and not the amount of compensation payable on account of
H   the amendment made in 1995, which is relevant. The decision of the Full
                   KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. VALSALA K.                    659
        Bench of the Kerala High Court, to the extent it is in accord with the judgment   A
        of the larger berich of this Court in Pratap Singh Narain Singh Deo v.
        Srinivas Sabata and Anr. (supra) lays down the correct law and we approve
        it.

              Having answered the question posed in the earlier part of the judgmen_t
        in the negative, we shall take up this batch of special leave petitions for       B
        consideration.

              In so far as these special leave petitions are concerned, we find that the
        accident took place long time back. Compensation became payable to the
        workmen, as it is not disputed that the accidents occurred during the course C

---     of employment, as per the law prior to the amendment made in 1995. Keeping
        in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, pettiness of the
        amounts involved in each of the cases and the time that has since elapsed,
        we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders, decided on the
        basis of the 1995 amendment, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136
        of the Constitution of India and, therefore, dismiss the special leave petitions, D
        but, after clarifying the law, as noticed above.

        CIVIi APPEAL NO. 596211997



 -
              This appeal by special leave calls in question the judgment of the High
        Court of Kerala, dated 22.10. 1996. We have heard learned counsel for the         E
        parties. The view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable and is in accord
        with the judgment of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas
        Sabata and Anr., [1976] 1 SCC 289 as also the Full Bench judgment of the
        Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, ( 1998) I KLT
        951 (FB). There is no mtrit in this appeal. It is dismissed. No costs.
                                                                                          F -~
        RP.                                              Petitions Appeal dismissed.



 ....

 -