The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct application of the law under Section 4(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the entitlement of the appellant insurance company to challenge the quantum of the award.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge the order dated 9. 9. 1997 in case No. Wca:cr:no. 28 of 1995, passed by the workmen's compensation commissioner, sub-division i, bangalore. In passing the said order, the workmen's compensation commissioner had awarded Rs. 2,21,370 as compensation payable to the l. rs. Of the deceased respondent nos. 2 and 3.

( 2 ) THE appellant insurance company is represented by the learned counsel Mr. S. p. shankar. On the other side, the respondent No. 1 owner is represented by Mr. Chennaraya reddy, whereas, respondent nos. 2 and 3 contesting respondents are represented by Mr. T. V. Ramesh.

( 3 ) MR. S. P. Shankar while urging the grounds made out in the appeal memorandum, more specifically, the ground No. 2, had taken me through the impugned order under challenge. It was his argument that the workmen's compensation commissioner, sub-division No. I, Bangalore, henceforth in brief referred to as 'the wcc' had made mistake in the matter of the application of the law under Section 4 (1) (a) of the workmen's compensation Act, henceforth 'the act', inasmuch as he had taken the wages of the deceased at Rs. 2,000 per month and further by taking one-half thereof, multiplied the same by the relevant factor: 221. 37 and thus arrived at the figure 2,21,370. It was pointed out by him that since the accident in question had taken place on 21. 4. 1994 and that since the amended provision to Section 4 came to be amended only on 15. 9. 1995, the wcc would have calculated the compensation as per the original provision in Section as it stood before amendment and that if that was done by the wcc that way, he would have taken the wages of the deceased at Rs. 1,000 per month and that thereafter he would have taken 40 per cent thereof to be multiplied by the said factor, 221. 37. He further submitted that if that was the position then the awardable compensation by the wcc would have been Rs. 88,548 only and not beyond.

( 4 ) IN support of his argument that the amended provision in Section 4 of the act was not applicable and that what was applicable was the provision to section 4 as stood earlier to the amendment, he had cited decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kerala State Electricity Board V. Valsala k. , 2000 ACJ 5 (sc ).

( 5 ) THEREFORE, he prayed that the instant appeal be allowed in part to restrict the award to Rs. 88,548 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent nos. 2 and 3, Mr. N. Gopalakrishna appearing along with T. V. Ramesh at the outset argued that the appellant insurance company could not maintain an appeal when it had challenged only the quantum part of the impugned award. In support of his argument, he had also cited before me a decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Mohammed Haneef, 1997 ACJ 461 (karnataka) and further an unreported decision of the learned single judge of this court in m. f. a. No. 4455 of 1998 decided on 10. 10. 2000. According to him if at all the appellant insurance company had to challenge the impugned order insofar as the same related to quantum of the sum awarded, the appellant insurance company would have filed a writ petition and not an appeal as it did before this court. That argument was advanced by Mr. N. Gopalakrishna on the ground that grounds available to the insurance company are limited to the grounds made under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it was also pointed out by him in this context that the appellant insurance company did not file an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on other grounds, no matter that the respondent No. 1 owner remained absent before the wcc upon filing vakalath on his behalf. He also added that in the instant appeal there is no point of law involved to challenge the impugned award passed by the wcc.

( 7 ) IN the light of the above