1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2004, made by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Amravati in W.C.A. No.3/2002, rejecting the application (Exh.1), the present appeal was filed in this Court by the claimants.

2. Heard learned Counsel for appellants, who argued that the appellants were entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,32,580/- as claimed in the application but the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation upheld the stand of the respondents that amount of Rs.1,69,510/- only was payable as the amendment to Sections 4 and 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,1923, made by Act No.30 of 1995 w.e.f. 15.9.1995 was not applicable in the case of the appellants, which is contrary to the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd...Versus...Asokan, reported in 1997 (1) CLR 1039, in which reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.16904 to 16909, decided on 6.11.1996 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Versus...V.K. Neelakandan and others. He then submits that the issue is covered by the said supreme Court judgment, dated 6.11.1996 and accordingly this Court should dispose of the present appeal.

3. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondents opposed the appeal and argued that the amendment by Act No.30 of 1995 effective from 15.9.1995 cannot have retrospective application and therefore, the amount payable under Sections 4 and 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act cannot be claimed retrospectively by virtue of amendment of 1995. I had adjourned the matter to enable learned Counsel for respondents to find out if there is any judgment contrary to the one in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited...Versus...Asokan, cited supra, and the Supreme Court judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd...Versus...V.K. Neelakandan and others. However, on 15.7.2009 when the case was heard finally, learned Counsel for respondents stated at the bar that there is no contrary judgment of any High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Following substantial question of law arises for my determination.

Whether the amendment of Sections 4 and 4-A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act No.30 of 1995 w.e.f. 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?

4. I have gone through the impugned order in the present appeal and the said judgment of Kerala High Court cited by learned Counsel for appellants. In the absence of any assistance from both the learned Counsel for the rival parties, I found that following is the existing legal position.

5. In Pratap Narain Singh Deo...Versus...Srinivas Sabata and another, reported in 1976 (1) Supreme Court Cases 289, the four-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the employer became liable to pay compensation as soon as personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of and in the course of employment. There was no suspension of the compensation pending settlement. In the aforesaid judgment, thus, it was clearly held that what was relevant was the date of accident for calculating the amount of compensation and not the date of adjudication while interpreting unamended provisions of Section 4-A. In New India Assurance Company Limited…Versus…V.K. Neelakandan and others (Civil Appeal Nos.16904 to 16909 of 1996, decided on 6.11.1996) [judgment quoted at page No.256 in 1999 (8) Supreme Court Cases, 254] the two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the wages of the workmen on the date of accident though were @ Rs.1,000/- per month, what was relevant was the date of adjudication on which date the workmen would have drawn wages @ Rs.1800/- per month and therefore, the Supreme Court took into account wages @ Rs.1800/- per mont