Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. versus VALSALA K. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

Decided
16 September 1999
Judges listed
A.S. ANAND, S. RAJENDRA BABU, R.C. LAHOTI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 657 · 1999 INSC 412
Also cited as
  • AIR 1999 SC 3502 (27 citing judgments)
  • (1999) 8 SCC 254 (26 citing judgments)
  • (2000) SCC(L&S) 50 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 4 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The neat question involved in these special leave petitions is whether, the amendment of Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act No. 30of1995 with effect from 15.9.1995, 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?

pp. 657–658, margin G

Various High Courts in the country, while dealing with the claim for compensation under the WorRmen'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.

p. 658, margin B

A four judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivs Sabata and Anr., [1976] I SCC 289 speaking through Shinghal. J. has held ti)at an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen 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 dat.e of adjudication of the claim.

p. 658, margin B

A two judge Bench of this Court in The New India Assurance Company Limited v. V.K. Neelakandan and Ors. etc. etc.--Civil Appeal Nos. 16904- 16906of1996, decided on 6.11.1996, however, took the view that Workmen's Compensation Act, being a special legislation for the benefit of the Workmen, the benefit as available on the date of adjudication should be extended to. the workmen and not the compensation which was payable on the date of the accident. Two judge Bench in Neelakandan 's case (supra), however, did not take notice of the judgment of the larger Bench in Pratap Naraian Singh Deo 's case, as it presumably was not brought to the notice of their Lordships. Be that as it may, in view of the categorical law laid down by the larger Bench in Pratap Narain Singh Deo 's case the view expressed by the two judge Bench in Neelakandan 's case is not correct.

p. 658, margin D

Our attention has also been drawn to a judgment of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court ill United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, (1998) 1 KL T 951 (FB) wherein the Full Bench precisely considered the same question and examined both the above noted judgments. It took the view that the injured-workmen becomes entitled to get compensation the moment he suffers personal injuries of the types contemplated by the provisions of the Workmen's _ Compensation Act and it is the amount of compensation payable on-the date of the accident and not the amount of compensation payable on account of the amendment made in 1995, which is relevant. The decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, to the extent it is in accord with the judgment of the larger berich of this Court in Pratap Singh Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Anr. (supra) lays down the correct law and we approve it.

pp. 658–659, margin F

Having answered the question posed in the earlier part of the judgmen_t in the negative, we shall take up this batch of special leave petitions for consideration.

p. 659, margin A

In so far as these special leave petitions are concerned, we find that the accident took place long time back. Compensation became payable to the workmen, as it is not disputed that the accidents occurred during the course of employment, as per the law prior to the amendment made in 1995. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, pettiness of the amounts involved in each of the cases and the time that has since elapsed, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders, decided on the basis of the 1995 amendment, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, dismiss the special leave petitions, but, after clarifying the law, as noticed above. CIVIi APPEAL NO. 596211997

p. 659, margin B

This appeal by special leave calls in question the judgment of the High Court of Kerala, dated 22.10. 1996. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable and is in accord with the judgment of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Anr., [1976] 1 SCC 289 as also the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alavi, ( 1998) I KL T 951 (FB). There is no mtrit in this appeal. It is dismissed. No costs. RP . Petitions Appeal dismissed.

p. 659, margin D