Back
1995 Supreme(HP) 88
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
S.N PHUKAN,BHAWANI SINGH
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
NAKO ALIAS NAIKU DERI - Respondent
FAO (WCA) No. 91 of 1987 and FAO (WCA) No. 92 of 1987
Decided On : 11/23/1995
In FAO (WCA) No. 91 of 1987: For the appellant :A.K. Goel, Advocate. For the respondents 1 to 3:K.S Patyal, Advocate. For the respondents 4 and 5:Praneet Gupta vice Bhupinder Gupta, Advocate. In FAO (WCA) No 92 of 1987: For the appellant :A. K. Goel, Advocate. For the respondents 1 and 2:K.S. Patyal, Advocate For the respondents 3 and 4:Praneet Gupta vice Bhupinder Gupta, Advocate
Retrospective operation of statutes is not favored unless it is clearly intended by the legislature, and giving retrospective effect to a statute that takes away vested rights is not permissible.
Headnote:
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - SECTION 4-A - SCHEDULE IV - Retrospective effect of amendment - Compensation - Liability for payment of interest and penalty.
Fact of the Case:
Two employees, Tulsia Ram and Ram Lai, died in an accident while working as a driver and a helper on a truck owned by Dhani Ram and Devi Ram. Their dependents filed claims for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The Commissioner awarded compensation to the dependents, holding that the truck was insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appealed, arguing that the Commissioner erred in awarding compensation under the amended Schedule IV to the Act, which came into force after the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Commissioner erred in awarding compensation under the amended Schedule IV to the Act, as it would take away the vested rights of the owner and the Insurance Company. The court applied the unamended Schedule IV to assess the compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the amended Schedule IV to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which came into force after the accident, can be applied retrospectively to assess compensation. 2. Who is liable to pay interest and penalty for delayed payment of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Retrospective operation of statutes is not favored unless it is clearly intended by the legislature. 2. The amended Schedule IV to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, does not expressly provide for retrospective operation, and giving it retrospective effect would take away the vested rights of the owner and the Insurance Company. 3. Therefore, the Commissioner erred in applying the amended Schedule IV to assess compensation. 4. Under section 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, both interest and penalty for delayed payment of compensation are payable by the owner.
Final Decision: The court modified the awards passed by the Commissioner and directed that the compensation be assessed according to the unamended Schedule IV. The court also directed that the owner of the vehicle, Dhani Ram and Devi Ram, shall pay interest and penalty for delayed payment of compensation.
S.N Phukan, C.J.—By this common judgment, we dispose of two appeals, registered as FAO (WCA) No 91 of 1987 and FAO (WCA) No/ 92 of 1 87 and also Cross-Objections No, 88 of 1989 filed in FAO No. 92 of 1987.
2. The appeal, registered as FAO (WCA) No. 91 of 1987 has been filed by the Insurance Company against the Award dated 30-6-1987 in Case No. 3/85, of the Commissioner, Solan, under the Workmens Compensation Act. The claim petition was filed by Smt Nako alias Naiku Devi widow of deceased Tulsia Ram and two minors, namely, Miss Devkoo Devi and Master Naiayan Dass Deceased Tulsia Ram was employed by respondent Nos 1 and 2, namely, Dhani Ram son of respondent No 2 Devi Ram, who are the owners of Truck No. HPA 1277. The truck was driven by deceased Ram Lal The truck in question—rolled down from the main road, as a result of which deceased Tulsia Ram sustained injuries and died. The accident took place on 27-6-1984 The deceased died leaving behind the claimants as his dependents as other daughters and son were married. The Commissioner held that the driver deceased Ram Lai was holding a valid driving licence. It was also held that deceased Tulsia Ram was paid a sum of Rs 600 per month as wages and that three claimants were his dependents, The Commissioner came to the finding that the truck was insured with the present appellant Accordingly, under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended, a sum of Rs. 44,200 was assessed as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and the liability for the compensation was fixed on the Insurance Company, namely, the present appellant Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed
3. The appeal, registered as FAO (WCA) No. 92 of 1987 has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 30-6-1987 passed in case No 6/84, of the Commissioner, Solan, under the Workmens Compensation Act. The present claim petition was filed by Smt. Malti Devi widow of Ram Lai and also on behalf of minor son Master Babli. Deceased Ram Lai died in the same accident and on the same date and he was the driver of the vehicle The Commissioner held that deceased Ram Lai had the valid driving licence No P/2794/79 and that his monthly wages was Rs. 750. A sum of Rs. 65,03 alongwith interest at the i ate of 6 per cent per annum was awarded as a compensation in favour of the claimants and the liability was fixed on the Insurance Company and hence the present appeal.
4. In Cross-Objections No. 88 of 1989 filed on behalf of the claimants, penalty as per the provisions of the Act has been claimed.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as learned Counsel for the respondents.
6. On behalf of the appellants, the main point urged is that the Commissioner erred in awarding compensation under the amended Schedule IV to the Act. It may be stated that this Schedule was amended by Act No. 22 of 1984 and it came into force on 1st July, 1984, that is, after about three days of the accident. Therefore, the main point is whether while assessing compensation, the present claimants will be governed by the amended Schedule or not.
7. It is a well settled rule of interpretation that unless the terms of a statute expressly provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a hew liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure and that all statutes other than those which are merely declaratory or which relate only to matters of procedure or of evidence are prospective,
8. We may refer to Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edn. p. 215, regarding retrospective operation of statutes in the following terms: “Upon the presumption that the legislature does not intend that is unjust rests the leaning against giving certain statutes a retrospective operation They are construed as operating only in cases
