IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 238 FAO-3902-2002 (O&M) Decided on : 28.07.2026 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ...APPELLANT VERSUS PRITAM SINGH AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for appellant. *** PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by appellant-Insurance Company being aggrieved by order dated 28.05.2021 passed by Learned Commissioner under Workmen Compensation and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commissioner’), whereby respondents-claimants (parents) were awarded total compensation of Rs.2,08,050/- along with interest @ 12% on account of death of Malkit Singh @ Pappu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) in motor vehicular accident dated 30.11.1987. 2. The sole ground to challenge order dated 28.05.2021 by appellant-Insurance Company is application of amended law while calculating compensation which was awarded to legal representatives of respondents-claimants. 3. Facts in present case are not in dispute. Deceased had died on 30.11.1987 during the course of his employment. Application for compensation was preferred in the year 1988, which was decided on SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.30 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3902-2002 (O&M) -2- 28.05.2001 and while determining compensation, learned Commissioner had taken 50% salary of deceased for determining compensation and also awarded 12% interest as by the time when the award was passed by learned Commissioner, the provisions of Sections 4(1)(a) and 4-A of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 were amended w.e.f. 15.09.1995, requiring interest @ 12% instead of 6% to be taken for determining compensation. Similarly, income was amended to 50% instead of 40%. 4. Learned Counsel for appellant-Insurance Company has argued that since the right to seek compensation had crystalized in favour of legal representatives of workman upon death of workman on 30.11.1987, therefore, for determination of compensation provisions of unamended Sections 4.(1)(a) and 4-A would be applicable. 5. Therefore, the question which arises in present appeal is whether amendment on 15.09.1995 would be retrospective or would be prospective. Similar issue has arisen in case of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1988 Act’), wherein issue was whether omission of Section 163A of 1988 Act and enactment of Section 164 of 1988 Act in Motor Vehicles Act w.e.f. 01.04.2022 would be prospective or retrospective. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roopa Vs. The Manager, Orix Auto Infrastructure Service Ltd. and Anr., Civil Appeal No.6797 of 2026 decided on 27.04.2026; The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Urmila Halder, 2025 ACJ 244; and K.R. Jagadish and Anr. Vs. M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr., 2025 ACJ 188 had concluded that SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.30 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3902-2002 (O&M) -3- since 1988 Act is beneficial legislation and amendment under Section 164 is procedural in nature, therefore, the compensation as amended under Section 164 can be awarded to appellants-claimants who had filed their petition under Section 163-A in accident which had occurred prior to 01.04.2022. In present case also The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is a beneficial legislation and purpose to amend factors for calculation of compensation is to give effective compensation and procedural in nature. 7. Accordingly, in present case also, the amendment made in Sections 4.(1)(a) and 4-A of The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is to be treated as retrospective in its operation and no error with the impugned order can be found. 8. In view of above discussion, present appeal is dismissed being without any merit. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (PARMOD GOYAL) JUDGE 28.07.2026 Sunil Chander Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SUNIL CHANDER 2026.07.30 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document