Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Moola Singh and others

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This petition for revision is directed against the order of the Commissioner under Workmen''s Compensation Act, Ambala, dismissing the application of the Insurance company praying that its liability is restricted only to Rs. 3000/-. In the present proceedings there is no dispute between the workmen and the employer, so far as the employer is concerned. The order of the Tribunal was passed on the 6th of January 1965. The Insurance company was no party to this order. It is only when this amount was sought to be recovered from the Insusurance company that they moved an application that their liability was only restricted to Rs. 3000/ and not Rs. 6000/. The ground taken was that at the time of the death of the employee, or the workman, the only amount that could be awarded in the circumstances of the case under schedule 4 of the Act was Rs. 3000/-. This amount of Rs. 3000/- has been enhanced to Rs. 6000/- by an amendment which came into effect on the 1st of February, 1963. The workman had died on the 14th of April, 1962. The application for compensation was made on the 6th of June, 1964, and the compensation was fixed by the Tribunal''s order on the 6th of Janury 1965.

The short question that fell for determination before the authority was as to what law was applicable, that is. the old schedule which held the field on the date of death or the new schedule which came into operation when the application was made. The authority took the view that the new schedule governed the case. It went further and held that the Insurance company being not a party to the decree, could not raise an objection to the decree. It is against this order rejecting the objection of the Insurance campany that the present petition for revision has been filed.

The contention of Mr. Munishwar Puri, learned Counsel for the Insurance company is that the authority was in error in holding that the Insurance company had no locus standi to object to the decree inasmuch as its liability under the decree was restricted to Rs. 3000/- and not Rs. 6000/-. This decision was taken in view of the schedule that held the field on the date of the death. As regards the matter of locus standi, it was held by Naik J. of the Bombay High Court in Messrs British India General Insurance Company Limited v. Sabanna Sabanna 1967. A.C.J. 165, that the position of the insurer is that of the judgment-debtor and, therefore, the question relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of a decree would be one falling u/s 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, it was open to the Insurance company to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner. No authority taking the contrary view has been brought to my notice. I entirely agree with the reasoning of the learned Judge and in my view the Commissioner was in error in holding that the Insurance company had no locus standi to raise the objection.

So far as the other matter is concerned, namely, as to whether the provision of law prevailing on the date of death or on the date of application will apply, the matter appears to me to admit of no two views. The normal rule of construction of statutes is that any enactment passed by a competent legislature is prospective unless it is expressly retrospective or by necessary implication it can be held to be retrospective. The rights and liabilities under the workmen''s compensation Act get crystalised on the date of the death and the making of the application is merely a procedural matter. On the date of the death the original schedule 4 prior to its amendment held the field and under that schedule admittedly the workman like the one in the present case was entitled to the compensation to the extent of Rs 3000/-. No case or any provision of law has been brought to my notice wherein the amended provision has been made applicable to cases of death which occur before the amendment came into being There is nothing in the Amending Act which makes the amended provision retrospective. I am, therefore, clearly of the view that the learned Commissioner was in error in holding that the amended schedule will hold the field.

The learned Counsel for the Insurance company contends that the amount of Rs. 3000/- should be refunded to the company. I see no ground to do so for the simple reason that the Insurance company admitted in the objection petition that it was liable to the extent of Rs. 3000/-. It was not its case that it was not liable at all. Its case only was that its liability cannot be to the extent of Rs. 6000/-.

For the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition and limit the liability of the Insurance company to the sum of Rs. 3000/-. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. The employer has not challenged the order of the Tribunal granting the compensation to the tune of Rs. 6000/- what its effect will be cannot be determined in these proceedings. So far as the employer is concerned, there will be no modification by reason of my order.