JUDGMENT
J.N. Sarma, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company. The only question involved in this appeal is that whether the workman was entitled to the benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 as amended by Amendment Act, 1995 (30 of 1995) which came into effect on September 15, 1995. By the Amendment Act the quantum of compensation has been raised. In this particular case the workman died on July 9, 1995 that is, before the date on which the Amendment Act came into force. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Nagaon, Assam by judgment dated August 12, 1996 in case No. NWC.25/95 gave the benefit of the amended provisions of the Act and fixed the compensation at Rs. 2,19,950.00.
2. Heard Mr. Dutta, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Borkataky, learned Advocate for the respondents.
3. Mr. Dutta urges that as the amendment was not retrospective in nature the benefit of the Amendment Act cannot be given to the heirs of the deceased workman and in this connection he relies on AIR 1982 SC 836 (Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Co. Ltd.), This was a case where the benefit was made available to a person after the amendment of the M.V. Act. By the Amendment Act of 56/96 the statutory liability of the insurer was increased from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 50,000 in case of a bus and it came into effect from March 2, 1970. The accident occurred on April 5, 1970 and the accident was after the coming into force of the Amendment Act. So that question as a matter of fact did not arise for determination or decision before the Apex Court. The Apex Court held that the liability of the insurer to pay a claim under motor accident policy arises on the occurrence of the accident. The Apex Court did not decide the prospectivity or retrospectivity of the Act. The next case relied on by Mr. Dutta is AIR 1964 SC 1511 (Mst. Rafiquennessa and Anr. v. Lal Bahadur Chetri and Anr.) Where it has been stated that where vested rights are affected by any statutory provision, the said provision should normally be construed to be prospective in operation and not retrospective, unless the provision in question relates merely to a procedural matter. The Legislature is competent to take away vested rights by means of retrospective legislation.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Borkataky, learned Advocate for the respondent placed reliance in 1998 ACJ 33 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ashokan) which was a Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court specifically deciding the present controversy. In para 7 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 16904 – 16909 of 1996 dated November 6, 1996 was referred to. That was a case where the workmen were drawing wages at the rate of Rs. 1800 per month. The insurance company contended that the compensation should be fixed on the basis of the income of the workers at Rs. 1000 per month. It was argued that the law operating on the date was applicable and as such the heirs of the workmen were not entitled to the benefit of the amendment. But, this plea was rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following manner:
“We are finally determining the rights of the workmen today. The Act is a special legislation for the benefit of the labour. Keeping in view the scheme of the Act we are of the view that the only interpretation which can be given to the amendment is that if any benefit is conferred on the workman and the said benefit is available on the date when the case is finally adjudicated, the said benefit should be extended to the workman. We, therefore, hold that the compensation to be paid to the heirs of the workman has to be calculated on the basis of the actual wages of Rs. 1,800 drawn by him”.
5. That being the position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal stands dismissed.