Gauhati High Court
Sabita Rani Roy And Ors. vs Bani Choudhury And Anr. on 14 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: II(2003)ACC321, (2003)1GLR127
JUDGMENT B.B. Deb, J.
1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, has been filed by the dependent legal representatives of the deceased workman, seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala dated 23.8.1993 passed in T.S. 20 (W.C.)/92.
2. One Swapan Roy, the predecessor in interest of the claimant-appellants having been engaged as an assistant by the owner respondent in vehicle bearing No. CTRL-3795) travelled with the said vehicle on 11th December, 1990. The said vehicle met an accident at village Ghoshpukur under P.S. Phansidewa, District Darjeling, West Bengal and as a result said Swapan Roy while was in employment in the said vehicle succumbed to the injuries he sustained out of the said accident.
3. The learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation after proper enquiry/trial awarded an amount of Rs. 78,824 being compensation with 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of application.
4. The claimant-appellants being dissatisfied with the insufficiency of the quantum of compensation preferred this appeal. The substantial question raised in this appeal to be answered has been formulated by this Court vide Order dated 25.1.2001 which is reproduced below :
"As to whether the provisions of the Act, 1923, as amended by the 1994 Act will be applicable or the provisions of the Act, 1923, as it existed prior to amendment of 1995 will be applicable will be considered at the hearing of the appeal."
5. The learned Commissioner in his impugned judgment, applied the rate of compensation scheduled under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as it prevailed prior to Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act, 1995. The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been amended by Act 30 of 1995 and the appointed day for coming into force of the provision of Amendment Act was 15.9.1995. The vehicular accident happened on 11.12.1990 as a result of which the employee Swapan Roy died instantaneously while he was in employment.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Workmen's Compensation Act being a benevolent piece of legislation, interpretation of the applicability of the said Act, must be leniently done giving all possible benefits to the bereaved family. In this respect learned counsel Mr. S. Talapatra, placed reliance in a case of our own High Court in Sandhya Goswami v. Bani Choudhury, reported in (2000) 2 GLR 18. Out of an accident the driver of the said vehicle died while in employment and the deceased wife and others filed compensation petition in T.S. (W.C.)22/92 before the learned Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation. Being aggrieved by the insufficiency of the award made by the learned Commissioner, the claimant-awardees preferred Money appeal before this court and this court in the a fore cited case held that "The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is a welfare legislation which requires to be given a broad and liberal interpretation. The statute deals with compensation for accident arising out of and in the course of employment to a certain class of workmen. It is a legislation dealing with Human Rights of the workmen, in construing-such a legislation, the artifice of mechanical interpretation is to be banished and the court in interpreting such Statutes, is to concern itself with the essence and measures of legislation, the nature and complexion of the Statute as well as the backdrop and framework of the law."
The Division Bench of this Court in the afore quoted decision in Sandhya Goswami (supra) held that the scheduled prescribed under section 4 of the Amended Act would be retrospectively applicable and, accordingly, this court enhanced the quantum of compensation proportionate to the rate enhanced by the Amended Act, Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Insurance Company respondent preferred Special Leave Petition (in S.L.P. Civil 2127-28 of 2000) against the finding of this Court in Sandhya Goswami (supra). But, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 29.1.2000 dismissed the S.L.P. The verbatim of the order of dismissal recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court is reproduced below :
"UPON hearing counsel the court made the following :
ORDER Delay condoned.
We note that law on this point has been laid down by this court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K. and Anr. (1999 (8) S.C.C. 254. Even in that case special leave was not granted though the said law was not applied in the judgment impugned therein. In the present case also we are not disposed to grant special leave as the disputed portion of the money is not large enough, particularly when dependents of the deceased workmen-ostensibly poor people would otherwise be put to great hardship in defending such appeals here. We, therefore, dismiss these SLPs."
7. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. D. K. Biswas, submits that the amended provision of Workmen's Compensation Act is prospective in nature having no manner of application in the case in hand according to him, the amended provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act has been brought into force with effect from 15.9.1995 while in the present case the accident resulting death of the employee happened on 11.12.1990 and, as such, the amended provision cannot be made applicable in the case in hand. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the Insurance Company lead me to go through the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Kerala State Electricity Board and another v. Valsala K and Anr. reported in (1999) 8 SCC 254. The Apex Court in the aforecited case followed the decision rendered by Four Judges Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a workman is entitled to be paid compensation for personal injury received by him in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment but to determine the rate of compensation, the relevant date would be the date of accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim. In conclusion, the Hon'bie Apex Court in the afore cited case (supra) answered that the workman is entitled to get compensation the moment he suffers personal injuries and the amount of compensation payable on the date of the accident and not the amount of compensation payable on account of amendment made in 1995.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that since the decision rendered by our own High Court holding the amended provision of 1995 retrospective in Sandhya Goswami (supra) remains not disturbed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid S.L.P. (supra), the appellants are entitled to be paid compensation at the enhanced rate in view of the Amended Act, 1995.
9. This Court in Sandhya Goswami (supra) undoubtedly held the retrospective applicability of the Amended Act, 1995 in a case pending adjudication. While the Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board (supra) specifically held that the provision of Amended Act of 1995 would be prospective and the workman or the dependent legal heirs would be entitled to be paid compensation at the rate prevailed on the date of accident irrespective of date of preferring claim and/or date of adjudication. The Hon'ble Apex Court declined to interfere with the judgment only on the ground of "disputed amount of money being not large enough" though the Hon'ble Apex Court endorsed the view recorded in Kerala State Electricity Board (supra). Unless the Hon'ble Apex Court lay down any 'law' by way of interpretation of, or declaration of any statute, the judgment of the Apex Court cannot be treated to be a binding precedent but a judgment simpliciter.
10. In view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board (supra) the Division Bench judgment rendered by our own High Court in Sandhya Goswami (supra) cannot be treated to be a good law to be followed. Under the aforesaid discussion, I am under constitutional obligation to follow the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board (supra) and, as such, I am constrained to hold that the rate of compensation enhanced by the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act, 1995 is only applicable to a case wherein accidental Injury or death happened on or after 15.9.1995. The substantial question of law is accordingly answered against the appellant.
11. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.