[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Abida Munshi Khan And Ors on 10 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:6857
ppn 1 43.fa-891.12(j).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
by PRACHI
PRACHI PRANESH
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
Date: 2026.02.10
FIRST APPEAL NO.891 OF 2012
18:21:42 +0530
The New India Assurance Company Limited )
Guru Govind Niwas, 2nd Floor, )
Murbad Road, Kalyan (West), ) .....Appellant
(Orig. Opponent No.2/Insurer)
V/s.
1. Smt. Abida Munshi Khan )
Aged -35 years, Occ. Housewife )
2. Mas. Akaram Munshi Khan )
Aged -12 years, Occ. Nil )
3. Mas. Nisar Munshi Khan )
Aged -10 years, Occ. Nil )
4. Rehana Munshi Khan )
Aged -35 years, Occ. Nil )
Applicant Nos.2 to 4 minors
through Natural Guardian and )
Mother Applicant No.1 )
All residing at Shivaji Nagar, Plot No.44, )
Line T Room NO.10, Govandi, )
Mumbai - 400 043. )
5. M/s. Solid Petroleum Refinery )
(formerly know as Jayhind Damber Plant )
C-450/3, T.T. C. Area, MIDC, Turbhe Vashi, )
Navi Mumbai, District- Thane- 400705. ) ...Respondents
(Orig. Applicants)
----
Mr. D.R. Mahadik for the appellant.
Mr. Mulanshu Vora i/by Mr. Avinash K. Jalisatgi for respondent nos.1 to 4.
----
::: Uploaded on - 10/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 10/02/2026 20:43:00 :::
ppn 2 43.fa-891.12(j).doc
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 10 February 2026
Judgment :
1. This appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was
admitted on 30 October 2012 on the following substantial questions of
law : -
1) Whether compensation could be awarded under the amended section 4 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 2000 which comes into force from 8.12.2000
though accident has occurred on 23.05.2000 ?
2) Whether Appellant/Insurer are liable to pay compensation though owner of the
insured vehicle is different party ?
2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent nos.1
to 4.
3. The first question which requires consideration is whether
Explanation II to Section 4(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
by which the wages of a workman for the purpose of computing
compensation was increased from Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/- by Act No.46 of
2000 with effect from 8 December 2000 would be applicable to a person
injured by the accident prior to the date of amendment. In the instant case,
the accident took place on 23 May 2000. Amendment whereby the wages
for the purpose of Section 4(1) was increased came into effect from 8
December 2000.
4. This issue whether the amendment would apply retrospectively had
come up for consideration not only with respect to the Workmen's
Compensation Act but also with respect to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Both these Acts are welfare legislations. However, consistent view taken by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts is that the law on the
ppn 3 43.fa-891.12(j).doc
date of accident would apply for the purpose of calculating compensation.
5. In the instant case, on the date of accident i.e., 23 May 2000,
Explanation II to Section 4(1) provided base of Rs.2000/- as wages for
computing compensation. Therefore, for the purpose of calculating
compensation under Section 4(1), the compensation should be calculated
on the basis of Rs.2000/- and not Rs.4000/-.
6. For the above view, learned counsel for the appellant is justified in
relying on following decisions :-
(i) Padma Srinivasan Vs. Premier Insurance Company Ltd.1
(ii) Satya Devi Sharma & Ors. Vs. Megh Pal & Anr.2
(iii) Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Valsala K.3
(iv) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sumitra Devi & Ors.4
7. In view of above, question no.(1) is answered against the
respondents and in favour of the appellant by holding that Section 4 of the
Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2000 which came into force
from 8 December 2000 will not be applicable to the accident which
occurred on 23 May 2000.
8. Insofar as the second issue is concerned, the learned counsel for the
appellant states that though the vehicle which is the subject matter of the
present proceedings was insured with them and the premium was received,
however, the name of the insured is different. According to the learned
counsel for the appellant, the name of the insured is 'Jayhind Construction,'
Ulhasnagar whereas in the application, opponent no.1 is described as 'M/s.
1 1982 A.C.J. 191 (SC)
2 2002 A.C.J. 2104 (HP)
3 2000 A.C.J. 5 (SC)
4 2002 A.C.J. 1974 (HP)
ppn 4 43.fa-891.12(j).doc
Solid Petroleum Refinery.' He, therefore, submits that the insurance
company should not be made liable to pay compensation.
9. In the application, opponent no.1- M/s.Solid Petroleum Refinery is
described as formerly known as 'Jayhind Dambar Plant.' In paragraph 22 of
the impugned order, there is a finding of fact that Jayhind Dambar Plant
and Jayhind Construction is the same and it is recorded that this fact has
not been controverted in the pleadings of the opponent. Today also, there
is no material on record placed before me to challenge this finding of fact.
It is also important to note that there is no dispute that the vehicle which
met with an accident was insured with the appellant. Therefore, in view of
this finding of fact, question no.(2) is decided against the insurance
company and in favour of the respondents.
10. The Labour Commissioner is directed to work out the compensation
after considering Rs.2000/- as wages and the insurance company is directed
to pay revised compensation to respondent nos.1 to 4.
11. The Labour Commissioner would give credit of the amount
withdrawn by respondent nos.1 to 4. The learned counsel for respondent
nos.1 to 4 states that the amount of Rs.2 lakhs has been deposited on 31
March 2009 with the Labour Court, Thane. This amount will now be
available to be disbursed to respondent nos.1 to 4 with interest. The
interest @ 12% p.a. will be granted from the date of accident till the date of
payment.
12. Appeal is partly allowed in above terms.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.)
