JUDGMENT
K.K. Usha, J.
1. Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Act 30 of 1995) has brought in drastic changes to different provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Whether such amendment to Sub-section (1) and Explanation II of Section 4 and addition of Sub-section (4) to Section 4 and amendment to Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A will have effect on pending proceedings in the issue raised in this appeal.
2. Appeal is at the instance of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., challenging the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kozhikode in W.C.C. No. 150/94. Respondents 1 and 2 are the claimants and third respondent is the employer. The son of respondents 1 and 2, who was a workman under the third respondent, died as a result of the accident happened on 163.1994. The only contention taken in this appeal is that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has committed an error in granting compensation on the basis of the provisions contained under Sections 4(1), 4(4) and 4-A as amended by Act 30 of 1995. According to the appellant, since the accident had happened before 15.9.1995, namely, the date on which the amendment came into, force, the claimants are entitled to compensation only in accordance with the unamended provisions of Sections 4 and 4-A.
3. The relevant portion of the unamended provisions of Section 4(1) and Explanation II as also Section 4-A(3) read as follows:
4. Amount of compensation-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely-
(a) Where death results from an amount equal to forty percent of
the injury the monthly wages of the deceased
workman multiplied by the relevant
factor;
or
an amount of twenty thousand rupees,
whichever is more;
(b) Where permanent total dis- an amount equal to fifty percent
ablement results from the of the monthly wages of the injured
injury workman multiplied by the relevant
factor;
or
an amount of twenty-four thousand
rupees whichever is more.
Explanation II-Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed one thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of Clause (a) and Clause (b) shall be deemed to be one thousand rupees only.
xxx xxx xxx
4-A. Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default-
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner may direct that, in addition to the amount of the arrears, simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the amount due together with, if in the opinion of the Commissioner there is no justification for the delay, a further sum not exceeding fifty percent of such amount, shall be recovered from the employer by way of penalty.
4. After the amendment, the 40% provided under Section 4(1)(a) was enhanced to 50% and the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. Under Section 4(1)(b), 50% was enhanced to 60% and the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 60,000/-. In Explanation II, the amount of Rs. 1,000/- as originally provided was enhanced to Rs. 2,000/-.
5. Sub-section (4) of Section 4, which is added by the Amending Act, reads as follows:
(4) If the injury of the workman resulted in his death, the employer shall, in addition to the compensation under Sub-section (1), deposit with the Commissioner a sum of one thousand rupees for payment of the same to the eldest surviving dependent of the workman towards the expenditure of the funeral of such workman or where the workman did not have a dependent or was not living with his dependent at the time of his death to the person who actually incurred such expenditure.
Section 4-A(3) as amended reads as follows:
(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall-
(a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled Bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and
(b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty percent of such amount by way of penalty.
6. Sections 4 and 5 of the Amending Act brought in the amendments to Sections 4 and 4-A of the present Act respectively. Section 1(2) of the Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Act 30 of 1995) provides that the Act comes into force on such date or dates as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the amending Act such as Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., Sections 4 and 5 of the Amending Act came into force w.e.f 15.9.1995 as per notification No. G1. Pt. II, Section 3(ii) Ex.No. 528, New Delhi, dated 12th September, 1995. Learned Counsel for the appellant therefore, submits that the enhanced amount of compensation as well as interest and also the amount directed to be paid towards funeral expenses are not liable to be paid in this case, since the liability to pay compensation had accrued on 16.3.1994, much before the amendment came into force. In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr. , and Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Company Ltd. 1982 ACJ 191, as also a Full Bench decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. v. Sheela Ratnan 1996 (2) KLT 695 (FB) : II (1997) ACC 346 (FB). It is contended that the liability of the employer to pay compensation under Section 3 of the Act arose as soon as the workman sustained the injury in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The law that has to be applied for computing the quantum of compensation should be the one applicable at the time of the accident. There is no indication in the provisions of the Amending Act to make it retrospective; on the other hand, the specific provisions contained under Section 1(2) of the Workmen’s Compensation Amending Act, 1995 would make it clear that the Legislature never intended to give retrospective effect to the amendment to Sections 4 and 4-A of the parent Act. Under these circumstances, according to the appellant, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation should have applied the, unamended provisions of Section 4 and 4-A for computing the quantum of compensation as well as interest.
7. Learned Counsel for respondents and 2, who were the applicant before the Court below, submitted that he was not in a position to point any provision in the Amending Act which would indicate that the amended provisions would have retrospective effect.
8. We are inclined to accept the contention raised by the appellant. Admittedly, the provisions contained under Sections 4 and 5 of the Amending Act came into force only w.e.f. 15.9.1995. Therefore, it has to be taken that the amendment to Sections 4 and 4-A of the parent Act has no retrospective effect from a date prior to 15.9.1995. Going by the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in , it has to be taken that the liability of the employer to pay compensation accrued on the date on which the workmen suffered personal injury. Relevant date is not the date on which the amount of compensation is quantified by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. A Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the. effect of the provisions pi 4he Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1976 in respect of pending proceeding in Kochu Velu v. Purakkattu Joseph and Ors. 1984 ACJ 630. In that case, injury was sustained by the workman in 1972. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in , this Court took the view that the right for compensation arose when (the injury was sustained in 1972. Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1976 came into force on 21.5.1976: But, Section 4 of the Amending Act which amended Schedule IV of the parent Act was given retrospective effect from 1st October, 1975. This Court took the view that when the substantive law is altered during the pendency of an action, the rights of parties are decided according to law as it existed when the obligation of the employer to pay compensation arose in the year 1972. The amendment which came into effect from 1st October, 1975 cannot be made applicable to pending proceeding. In 1982 ACJ 191 (supra), Supreme Court had taken a similar view while considering the liability of the insurer Under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The contention raised by the Insurance Company that crucial date is the date on which they entered into agreement with the owner of the vehicle and therefore, their liability is not affected by the amendment brought to Section 95(2) by Act 56 of 1969 which came into force on 2.3.1970, was not accepted by the Supreme Court. It was held that even though the policy was issued on 30.6.1969 since, the accident had happened on 5.4.1970, after the amendment had come into force, the amended provisions of Section 95(2) shall be applied. While considering the applicability of the provisions contained under the amended provisions of Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in 1996 (2) KLT 695 (FB) (supra), this Court also took the same view, namely, that the liability to pay compensation accrued on the date of the accident and that the law as on the date of the accident shall be applied on computing the quantum of compensation.
9. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the enhancement of the amount of compensation as also rate of interest brought in by way of amendment to Sections 4 and 4-A of Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1955 would be applicable only in respect of the claims put forward on the basis of accidents which had happened on or after 15.9.1995. We also hold that the benefit of Sub-section (4) of Section 4(b) can be granted only in respect of claims arising out of the accident happened on or after 15.9.1995.
10. As mentioned earlier, in this case, the accident in which the workman died happened on 16.3.1994. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to the benefit of amended provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. An amount of Rs. 89,600/- with interest at 6% was directed to be released to the claimants from the amount deposited by the appellant as per the interim order passed by this Court on 11.3.1996. It is submitted by both sides that no further amount would be due to the claimants on the basis of the unamended provisions of the Act. In the result, we allow the appeal, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.