IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the interpretation and application of Section 4(A) of the Workmen Compensation Act, particularly in determining the calculation of compensation and the liability of the insurance company.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Senior advocate Mr. Anshin H. Desai for appellant and learned Mr. Shashikant S. Gade for respondent No.3.

2. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 The deceased-Meghrajji Natubha @ Jatubha was serving as a Watchman with the present appellant. During the course of employment on 08.12.1991, an accident took place and on 09.12.1991, workman died in Hospital. The deceased was earning Rs.750/- per month by way of salary plus overtime bonus etc. The deceased was aged about 45 years at the relevant time. The Claim Application was filed by the heirs of the deceased claiming of compensation of Rs.55,200/- from the original opponents with penalty plus interest @ 18% p.a.

3.2. Appellant appeared in the proceedings and filed written statement and denied their liability mainly on the ground that the workman was appointed by the respondent No.2 and hence, present appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the original claimants i.e. present respondent Nos.1.1 to 1.5. Opponent No.3 i.e. Insurance Company also filed its written statement and denied the coverage of risk and also denied its liability.

4. Learned Senior advocate Mr. Anshin H. Desai for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and order is bad in law, more particularly, the learned Labour Court wrongly exonerated the respondent No.3 from its liability of compensation. It is further submitted that on the date of accident, the Insurance was in existence. Since original policy was not produced by the Insurance Company, the same was exonerated from its liability. However, the document i.e. the Insurance Policy for the period from 10.09.1991 to 10.09.1992, which was on record gives clear indication of covering the date of accident.

4.1 It is further submitted that the learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate the Exhibit-46, which is the date i.e. 10.09.1992 is shown as a “renewal date” of the policy. It is further submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed an error in considering the renewal date as the date of period of Insurance i.e. from 22.10.1992 to 21.10.1993. It is further submitted that the Insurance Company was also called upon vide Exhibit-38, to produce the Policy No.41/00185-92 covering the period of 11.09.1991 to 10.09.1992. However, the Insurance Company did not produce the copy of Policy.

4.2 Learned Senior advocate for the appellant has further submitted that Section 4(A) of the Act is amended on 15.09.1995. The accident in the present case resulting into death of the workman has occurred on 08.12.1991, which was prior to introduction of Section 4(A) of the Act and the applicable rate of compensation was to be calculated at “an amount equal to 40% of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor”. The learned Commissioner has calculated the amount of compensation at the rate of 50% (as per the amending Act), despite the accident took place prior to coming into force of the amended Section.

4.3 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerela State Electricity Board and Another Versus Valsala K. and Another reported in (1999) 8 SCC 254.

5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 i.e. Insurance Company has submitted that there are no reasons to interfere with the findings of fact, which have been arrived at by the learned Commissioner. The learned advocate for the respondent No.3 has mainly supported the findings and observations made by the learned Commissioner. It is further submitted that on the date of accident there was no Insurance and looking to the said fact, the learned Commissioner has rightly exonerated the respondent No.3-Insurance Company from its liability of compensation. It is further submitted that so far as the penalty and