United India Assurance Co.Ltd.Chd. vs Shri Om Parkash Etc.

1

98 (O&M)

FAO No.1325 OF 199
IN T
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ
JAB AND HARYANA
ARH
AT CHANDIGA




M/S UNITED IN
Vs
OM PARKASH

CORAM: HON
FAO No.1
Date of D
1325 of 1998 (O&M)
Decision: 31.08.2026

…Appe llant
NDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
H AND ORS.
…Respondents
N'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKES
SH MANUJA
Present: Mr
for

. Nitin Gupta, Advocate
the appellant-Insurance Compan
ny.
Non


HARKESH MA
ne for the respondents.

ANUJA, J.
1. The
e present appeal under Section 3
30 of the Workmen's Compensat
tion
Act, 1923 (for
short, "the 1923 Act"), has
been preferred by the appellan
nts-
claimants assai
iling the award dated 02.02
2.1998 , passed by the learn
ned
Commissioner u
under the 1923 Act, Rohtak, wh
hereby compensation to the tune
e of
Rs.1,60,177.50/
- came to be awarded on accou
unt of death of Baljit Singh, dur
ring
the course of h
his employment with responden
nt No.1. In the event of default
t in
making paymen
nt within thirty (30) days from t
the date of award, interest @ 1
2%
per annum was a
also ordered to be paid till actual
l realization of the whole amoun
nt.
2. Brief
fly stating, a claim petition unde
er the 1923 Act, came to filed at
the
instance of app
pellants/claimants before the le
earned Workmen’s Compensat
tion
Commissioner,
Rohtak, praying for grant of co
mpensation on account of death
h of
their son name
ely Baljit Singh arising out o
of and during the course of
his
employment wit
th respondent No.1. It was plead
ded that the deceased was employ
yed
as a Co-driver/
/Conductor on Vehicle TATA
A HR-46-0562 duly insured w
with
respondent No.2
2/Insurance Company and while
on duty on 13.03.1994, the vehi
icle
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2

98 (O&M)

FAO No.1325 OF 199
met with an acc
cident due to which Baljit Singh
h died. Respondent No.1-Emplo
oyer
admitted the rel
lationship of employer and emp
ployee as well as the occurrence
e of
the accident aris
sing out of and during the course
e of employment, but sought to sh
hift
the liability upo
on respondent No.2-Insurance
Company on the ground that
the
vehicle in questi
ion was duly insured with it.
3. Upo
on appreciation of the pleading
gs and evidence led by the part
ties,
the learned Com
mmissioner held that the accident
t arose out of and during the cou
urse
of employment.
. Consequently, compensation o
of Rs.1,60,177.50 was awarded
by
taking the mont
thly wages at Rs.1500/-, beside
es directing payment of interest
t @
12% per annum
m if the awarded amount was no
ot paid within 30 days from the d
date
of the Award. A
Aggrieved thereby, the present ap
ppeal has been preferred.
4. Lea
arned counsel for the appel
llants submits that the learn
ned
Commissioner c
committed error in awarding the
amount of compensation in fav
vour
of the claiman
nts/respondents as per provisio
ons of Workmen’s Compensat
tion
(Amendment) A
Act, 1995 (30 of 1995) as the sam
me was to be applied prospective
ely.
The accident in
question took place on 13.03.1
994 and the amendment came i
into
existence only
on 15.09.1995, it is, thus, pray
yed that the award passed by
the
learned Commis
ssioner was liable to be set aside
.
5. No
one has appeared on behalf of th
he respondents.
6. I ha
ave heard learned counsel for th
he appellant and perused the pap
per-
book.
7. The
e only issue that falls for cons
sideration in the present appea
l is
whether the lea
arned Commissioner was justi
ified in computing and award
ding
compensation b
by applying the provisions of th
he Workmen's Compensation A
Act,
1923, as they st
ood amended by the Workmen's
s Compensation (Amendment) A
Act,
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3

98 (O&M)

FAO No.1325 OF 199
1995 (Act No. 3
30 of 1995), notwithstanding tha
at the accident resulting in the de
eath
of the deceased
d-workman occurred on 13.03.1
994, i.e., prior to the coming i
into
force of the said
d Amendment Act on 15.09.1995
5.
8. It is
by now well settled that the righ
hts and liabilities of the parties i
in a
claim for compe
ensation under the 1923 Act cry
ystallize on the date of the accide
ent,
and it is the la
aw as it stood on that date wh
hich governs the determination
n of
compensation p
payable, unless the amending
enactment either expressly or
by
necessary intend
dment is made retrospective in i
its operation. The Amendment A
Act
of 1995 does no
ot contain any provision, express
s or implied, giving it retrospect
tive
effect; on the co
ontrary, Section 1(2) thereof stip
pulates that it shall come into fo
orce
on such date as
the Central Government may, by
y notification, appoint, and it is
not
in dispute that th
he appointed date is 15.09.1995.
Consequently, the enhanced wa
age-
ceiling and the
revised factors introduced by th
he said Amendment Act cannot
t be
pressed into ser
rvice for computing compensatio
on in respect of an accident wh
hich
f law is no longer res integra a
occurred before
e the said date. This position of
and
stands settled b
by a consistent line of judic
cial pronouncements holding t
that
amendments to
beneficial social welfare legis
slation, insofar as they affect
the
quantum of sub
bstantive liability, operate pro
ospectively unless the Legislat
ture
manifests a cont
trary intention.
9. A
perusal of the award would rev
veal that the learned Commissio
oner
computed the c
compensation by taking the m
monthly wages of the deceased
d at
Rs.1,500/- and b
by applying the relevant factor p
prescribed under Schedule-IV of
the
1923 Act corre
sponding to the age of the dec
ceased, as it stood applicable a
and
prevalent on th
e date of the accident, i.e., 13
.03.1994. There is nothing on
the
record, nor has
it been demonstrated by the lea
arned counsel for the appellants
s by
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4

98 (O&M)

FAO No.1325 OF 199
reference to an
ny specific computation or figu
ure in the award, that the learn
ned
Commissioner h
has, in fact, invoked or applied th
he enhanced ceiling or the amend
ded
Schedule as intr
roduced by the 1995 Amendmen
nt Act while arriving at the figure
e of
Rs.1,60,177.50/-
-. The apprehension voiced on
n behalf of the appellants that
the
award has been
passed "as per the provisions o
of the Amendment Act of 1995"
" is,
therefore, factua
ally unsubstantiated and miscon
nceived. Mere passing of the aw
ward
came into force, does not ipso fa
acto
in the year 1998
8, i.e., after the Amendment Act c
lead to an infere
ence that the amended provision
ns have been applied, more so wh
hen
the computatio
n itself is referable to and
consistent with the un-amend
ded
provisions appli
icable as on the date of accident.
10. That
t being so, no illegality, infirmity
y or error of law can be said to h
ave
been committed
d by the learned Commissioner in
n passing the impugned award. T
The
compensation ha
as been correctly computed with
h reference to the law as it stood
d on
the date of the
accident, and the direction for
r payment of interest @ 12%
per
annum in the ev
vent of default, being in consonan
nce with the mandate of Section
4A
of the 1923 Act
t, also does not call for any inter
rference. Consequently, the pres
sent
appeal, being de
evoid of merit, is hereby dismiss
ed .
11. Pendin
ng miscellaneous application(s), i
if any, shall also stand disposed
of.


ARKESH MANUJA)

August 31, 2026
Atik
(HA
6
JUDGE

ether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
ether reportable Yes/No
Whe
Whe
MOHMED ATIK
2026.09.02 16:38
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document