Point of Law : Objective of amendment was to remove a deeming cap on monthly income of an employee and extend to them compensation on basis of actual monthly wages drawn by them, however, there was nothing to indicate that legislature intended for benefit to extend to accidents that took place prior to the coming into force of the amendment.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company has assailed award dated 25.04.2014, passed by the Court of Commissioner under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in WC No. 3/2 of 2011/10, titled Smt. Rattani Devi vs. Smt. Pushp Lata and another, in terms whereof, the claim petition preferred by respondent No.1 herein was allowed by the learned Commissioner in the following terms:-

“In the light of my findings on above issues, the present petition is partly allowed and an award of Rs.5,84,800/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death of deceased Bhim Singh i.e. 28.10.2009 till realization of the said amount alongwith Rs. 5,000/- as funeral charges alongwith the cost of litigation is hereby passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. The file after due completion be consigned to the record room.”

2. This appeal was admitted on 23.02.2015, on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the award of the Commission suffers from illegality and is unsustainable regarding employer-employee relationship in the absence of any proof?

2. Whether the Commissioner has committed an error while arriving at the conclusion that the deceased suffered injuries during the course of his employment under the Insured in the absence of any employment proof on record?

3. Whether the Award is unsustainable for the reason that the Commissioner has fell into error while applying the provisions of law with retrospective effect?

4. Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in imposing the interest on award amount upon the insurance company in the absence of any contract or statutory provision empowering him to do so?”

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as under:-

Respondent/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner for convenience) filed a petition seeking compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, on the grounds that her husband, namely, Bhim Singh was working as a Driver with Smt. Pushp Lata, engaged on vehicle No. Hyva No. HP 24A-457A and in the course of his employment on 28.10.2009, when he was plying said vehicle from Delag Gala to Ghagas, the same met with an accident, on account of which, Bhim Singh sustained multiple injuries, leading to his death. According to the claimant, the accident occurred on account of a mechanical defect. At the time of the accident, deceased Bhim Singh was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 6000/- per month and also Rs. 150/- as diet money and apart from this, he was also having some earning from the agriculture, which took his gross monthly earnings to be Rs.11,500/-. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000,00/- was sought by the claimant. The owner of the vehicle admitted the case of the petitioner except the fact that late Bhim Singh was having any agricultural income.

4. The appellant-Insurance Company, resisted the claim petition inter alia on the ground that the same was not maintainable and that the vehicle was being driven by the deceased without any valid and effective licence and that there was no nexus between the death of the deceased and his employment.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by learned Commissioner:-

1. Whether the deceased Bhim Singh the husband of petitioner died during the course of employment with the respondent while driving the Hyva No. HP 24A-4578? OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the respondents on account of the death of Bhim Singh alongwith interest @ 12% per annum? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the petition is incomplete, vague and without cause of action? OPD

5. Whether there is no nexus between the death and the emplo