The court reaffirmed that amendments to compensation laws are not retroactive and must be applied based on the law in effect at the time of the accident.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order in E.C.C No.55 of 2016 dated 01.10.2018 on the files of the Employees Compensation Commissioner (ECC), Palakkad.

2. The appellant was the 2^nd opposite party in the proceedings before the E.C.C. Respondents 1 to 3 were the applicants and the 4^th respondent was the 1^st opposite party in the said proceedings. (Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status before the E.C.C.)

Brief facts

3. Applicants are the legal heirs of late Ramaswami, who was the driver of a pick-up van bearing No.KL-9/R-3137. The said pickup van was owned by the 1^st opposite party. On 16.01.2010, while cleaning the vehicle, the deceased had to switch on an electric motor to fetch water and in the process, he sustained an electric shock and got electrocuted. The accident happened during and in the course of his employment under the 1^st opposite party within the premises owned and possessed by the 1^st opposite party. The deceased was permanently employed under the 1^st opposite party as a driver for over 3 years. It was contended that the monthly wage of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- and he had completed the age of 25 years at the time of the accident. Applicants being the wife and children of the deceased moved the E.C.C., Palakkad, by filing an application under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1923 Act”) seeking a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

Proceedings before the ECC

4. The E.C.C., after due preliminary enquiry, found that a prima facie case exists and the matter was taken into file. Pursuant to the notices issued, the opposite parties entered appearance and filed their respective written statements. E.C.C. framed five issues for consideration. Exts.A1 to A10 were marked by the applicants and AW1 wife of the deceased was examined. No documents were marked from the side of the opposite parties nor were any witnesses examined. E.C.C. considered the issues framed and rendered an order holding that the 2^nd opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the applicants and directed them to deposit an amount of Rs.6,40,710/- with simple interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from 16.01.2010 and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The said order of the E.C.C. is impugned in this MFA (ECC) raising the following substantial question for consideration:

“i) Has not the Commissioner went wrong in considering the monthly wage of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month to determine lumpsum compensation under Section 4 of the E.C. Act especially when the amendment to monthly wage was made only with effect from 18.1.10?”

5. Heard Smt.Latha Susan Cherian, Advocate, appearing for the 2^nd opposite party (appellant) and Sri.Baby Mathew, Advocate, appearing for applicants (respondents 1 to 3).

Contentions put forth:

6. The learned counsel for the 2^nd opposite party submitted that the order rendered by the E.C.C. is contrary to law and the settled precedents as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The E.C.C. had erred in taking the monthly wages at Rs.6,000/-. The monthly wages paid by the 1^st opposite party to the deceased had not been substantiated by any documentary evidence and hence the claim for Rs.6,000/- as the monthly wage ought not to have been accepted due to the lack of any supporting evidence. Since the incident had occurred on 16.01.2010, as per the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as it stood on that date, the monthly wage is to be reckoned as Rs.4,000/- and not Rs.6,000/- The reasoning given by the E.C.C. for taking Rs.6,000/- as monthly wages that the amendment of the Act was pub