2025:HHC:16078 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (EC) No. 300 of 2018 Reserved on: 22.05.2025 Decided on: 27.05.2025 _________________________________________________________________ United India Insurance Company Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Smt. Kamla Devi and others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 5. Satyen Vaidya, Judge This appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, “The Act”) against award dated 13.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Court No.1 Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur H.P. in W.C. case No. 13/02 of 2015/09. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2025:HHC:16078 - 2 - 2. Respondents No. 1 to 5 were the claimants. The original respondent No.6 was employer and the appellant was the insurer. 3. The compensation was claimed by the claimants on account of death of Sh. Mehar Lal during the course of his employment with the employer. Sh. Mehar Lal was the driver employed by the employer to drive truck bearing registration No. HIB-785, which had met with an accident on 02.07.1995, resulting in death of Sh. Mehar Lal. 4. Learned Commissioner held that the deceased Mehar Lal was drawing wages of Rs. 3,000/- per month and in addition was being paid diet expenses @ Rs.50/- per day. In this manner, the total monthly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs.4500/-. However, the income was capped at Rs.4000/- per month and by taking half of said income, it was multiplied by the factor of 205.95. Thus, the compensation of Rs.4,11,900/- has been awarded alongwith simple interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 02.08.1995. In addition, a sum of Rs.2500/- has also been awarded as funeral expenses. 2025:HHC:16078 - 3 - 5. The liability to pay the award has been fastened on the insurer. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma learned Senior Advocate, representing the insurer would contend that learned Commissioner has erred in not calculating the payable compensation in terms of the provisions of the Act as were applicable on the date when the cause of action had arisen. 8. The accident that provided the cause of action to the claimants to file claim under the Act had taken place on 02.07.1995. The Act was amended by amendment Act 30 of 1995 w.e.f. 15.9.1995. It is no more res integra that a person becomes entitled to compensation under the Act as is applicable on the date on which cause of action arises. In this case, the cause of action arose on 02.07.1995 i.e. before 15.9.1995, the date on the amendment Act 30 of 1995 came into force. The provisions of the said amendment Act have no retrospective effect. Reference can be made in this regard to the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kerala State 2025:HHC:16078 - 4 - Electricity Board and another vs. Valsala K. and another (1999) 8 SCC 254 and also K. Sivaraman and others vs. P. Sathishkumar and another (2020) 4 SCC 594. 9. Section 4 of the Act was amended by amendment Act 30 of 1995 and in section 4(1)(a) the words “50%” were substituted for the words “40%”. Similarly, in Explanation-II appended to section 4 of the principal Act, the words Rs.2000/- were substituted for the word Rs.1000/-. 10. Thus, on 02.07.1995 i.e. the date of accident as per Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act an amount equal to 40% of the monthly wages of deceased workman was to be multiplied by the relevant factor for assessing the compensation in case of death of the workman and as per Explanation-II, where the monthly wages of workman exceeded Rs.1000/-, his monthly wages for the purposes of Clause (a) were to be considered as Rs.1000/- only. In this manner, the monthly wages of Mehar Lal in the case in hand could not be taken above Rs.1000/- and its 40% would be Rs.400/-. This amount was required to be multiplied by the relevant factor of 205.95 and by such 2025:HHC:16078 - 5 - application, the compensation payable to the claimants could not exceed Rs.400 x 205.95 = Rs.82,380/-. 11. It has further been contended by learned Senior Counsel for the insurer that though the cause of action had arisen to the claimants on 02.07.1995, but they filed the petition under the Act on 18.11.2009. In between they had been prosecuting the relief under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act w.e.f. 29.01.1996 to 20.10.2009, when the appeal filed by the insurer under Motor Vehicles Act against award dated 15.11.1999 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, was set-aside and the claimants were granted liberty to seek appropriate remedy as per law. On such basis, he submitted that learned Commissioner was not right in awarding the interest @ 12% per annum as at the relevant time i.e. 02.07.1995 the statutory interest payable under the Act was only 6%. As per him, the rate of statutory interest increased to 12% by the amendment Act 30 of 1995 w.e.f. 15.09.1995. He further contended that the interest should also be held payable from 18.11.2009, when the claimants filed claim petition under the Act before learned Commissioner. 2025:HHC:16078 - 6 - 12. The above contention needs to be sustained partially for the same reason that the entitlement of the claimants would be in terms of the provisions of law as applicable on the date of cause of action i.e. the date of accident. Thus, the rate of interest on the amount of compensation would be 6% instead of 12% per annum as awarded by learned Commissioner, however, the same being statutory shall be payable from the date of cause of action i.e. the date of accident till the deposit of amount. 13. The liability to pay the amount of compensation and interest shall be on the insurer/ appellant herein. 14. In light of above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 13.03.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner, Court No.1 Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur H.P. in W.C. case No. 13/02 of 2015/09, is modified to the extent as held hereinabove. 15. The appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any. (Satyen Vaidya) 27th May, 2025 Judge (GR)