Bombay High Court
Sanjay Janardhan Ghadge vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd And ... on 29 January, 2021
Bench: P. K. Chavan
9-IA-193-2021.doc
Shailaja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.193 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.966 OF 2016
Sanjay Janardhan Ghadge ] Applicant
Vs.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ]
and others. ] Respondents
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ] Appellant
Vs.
Sanjay Janardhan Ghadge and Anr.] Respondents
.....
Mr. T.J. Mendon, for Applicant.
Mr. D.S. Joshi, for Respondent.
.....
CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
DATE : 29th JANUARY, 2021.
P.C.
1. Heard Mr. Mendon, learned Counsel for applicant No.1-
original claimant namely Mr. Sanjay Janardhan Ghadge.
2. My attention is drawn to the operative part of the impugned
judgment wherein the learned Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Mumbai has directed the appellant and the
Shailaja S. Digitally signed by Shailaja S. 1 of 4
Halkude
Halkude Date: 2021.01.30 12:32:07 +0530
9-IA-193-2021.doc
employer to pay compensation to the claimant from the date of
adjudication till it's final realization.
3. According to Mr. Mendon, this is against the settled
principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Siby George and others, 2012
ACJ 2126. It would be apposite to refer to paragraph 9 of the
judgment which reads thus;
"9. The matter once again came up before the Court
when by amendments introduced in the Act by Act
No. 30 of 1995 the amount of compensation and the
rate of interest were increased with effect from
15.9.1995. The question arose whether the increased
amount of compensation and the rate of interest
would apply also to cases in which the accident took
place before 15.9.1995. A three Judge Bench of the
Court in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Valsala K.,
2000 ACJ 5 (SC), answered the question in the
negative holding, on the authority of Pratap Narain
Singh Deo, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC) that the payment of
compensation fell due on the date of the accident. In
paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the decision the Court
observed as follows:
"1.The neat question involved in these special leave
petitions is whether the amendment of sections 4
and 4-A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923,
made by Act No.30 of 1995 with effect from 15-9-
2 of 4
9-IA-193-2021.doc
1995, enhancing the amount of compensation and
rate of interest, would be attracted to cases where the
claims in respect of death or permanent disablement
resulting from an accident caused during the course
of employment, took place prior to 15-9-1995?
2. Various High Courts in the country, while dealing
with the claim for compensation under the
Workmen's Compensation Act have uniformly taken
the view that the relevant date for determining the
rights and liabilities of the parties is the date of the
accident.
3. A four Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain
Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, 1976 ACJ 141 (SC)
speaking through Singhal, J. has held that an
employer becomes liable to pay compensation as
soon as the personal injury is caused to the workman
by the accident which arose out of and in the course
of employment. Thus, the relevant date for
determination of the rate of compensation is the date
of the accident and not the date of adjudication of
the claim".
It can be seen that the relevant date for determination of the rate
of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of
adjudication of the claim.
3 of 4
9-IA-193-2021.doc
4. In view of the above, liberty is granted to the original
applicant-claimant to file a cross objection.
5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondent-insurer
fairly submits that after filing Cross Objection, he will take
necessary steps to settle the matter.
6. As such, liberty is granted to the applicant to file a Cross
Objection and to file a fresh praecipe as and when talks of
settlement would be materialized.
[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.]
4 of 4
