Compensation is governed by the law prevailing on the accident date, absent retrospective legislative intent.

Baljit Singh, the son of the claimants, was employed as a co-driver/conductor on Tata vehicle No. HR-46-0562, which was insured with the appellant-insurance company.

He died in an accident on 13 March 1994, arising out of and during the course of his employment.

The claimants filed a petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Rohtak.

The Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 1,60,177.50, calculated on the basis of monthly wages of Rs. 1,500 and the applicable factor under Schedule IV of the 1923 Act.

The insurance company challenged the award under Section 30 of the 1923 Act, contending that the Commissioner had wrongly applied the Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1995, which came into force on 15 September 1995, after the accident.

Whether the compensation for an accident occurring on 13 March 1994 could be computed by applying the enhanced wage ceiling and revised factors introduced by the Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1995, which came into force on 15 September 1995?

Whether the Commissioner’s award of Rs. 1,60,177.50, together with conditional interest at 12% per annum under Section 4A of the 1923 Act, suffered from any illegality or error of law?

The Court applied Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, governing appeals from the Commissioner’s award, and Section 4A concerning interest for default in payment of compensation.

The Court held that rights and liabilities under the 1923 Act crystallise on the date of the accident, and compensation must ordinarily be determined according to the law then in force, unless the amending legislation expressly or by necessary implication operates retrospectively.

Section 1(2) of the Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1995 provided that the amendment would come into force on a date appointed by the Central Government; the appointed date was 15 September 1995.

Accordingly, the enhanced wage ceiling and revised Schedule IV factors introduced by the 1995 Amendment Act could not be applied to an accident occurring before that date.

Amendments affecting the quantum of substantive liability under beneficial social-welfare legislation operate prospectively unless a contrary legislative intention is shown.

The accident occurred on 13 March 1994, whereas the 1995 Amendment Act came into force only on 15 September 1995. Therefore, the applicable compensation provisions were those in force on the date of the accident.

On examining the Commissioner’s award, the Court found that compensation had been calculated using monthly wages of Rs. 1,500 and the factor prescribed under Schedule IV as applicable on 13 March 1994.

The insurance company produced no specific computation or other material demonstrating that the enhanced wage ceiling or amended Schedule IV factors had actually been applied.

The mere fact that the award was passed in 1998, after the Amendment Act came into force, did not establish that the amended provisions had been used.

The conditional award of 12% interest for non-payment within 30 days was consistent with Section 4A and likewise disclosed no legal error.

The award of Rs. 1,60,177.50, along with the direction for payment of 12% per annum interest in the event of default, was upheld.

The appeal was dismissed for want of merit, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.