- (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 7th December, 1999 whereby the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Jaipur District, Jaipur passed an award to the tune of Rs. 89,424/- alongwith the interest @ 12 per annum thereon, in favour of the claimant respondent No. 1 and against the non-claimant appellant.The facts of the case, in brief are thus : That on 29th March, 1992 the injured Arjun was employed as driver of the tractor No. R.J. 14 R belonging to the respondent No. 2 which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. It is stated that the said tractor met with an accident resulting in injuries to the claimant and he suffered amputation of his hand which was graved by thresher attached with the said tractor. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition stating that he was getting Rs. 1,200/- per month salary and D.A./- at the rate of Rs. 20/- per day and, thus, he was earning Rs. 1,800/- per month. The age of the claimant was 30 years at the time of accident. The claimant claimed amount of Rs. 1,87,182/- as compensation by filing the claim.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions before this Court : firstly, that the date of accident was 29th March, 1992 when the unamended Act was in force. The Act was amended in the year 1995. However while deciding the case, the learned Commissioner has given the benefit of the amended law, where the case was covered by the unamended law. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has erred in applying the correct law, the rate of interest was 6%. However, while applying the amended law, the learned Commissioner has granted the benefit of 12% rate of interest. According to the learned Counsel, in case the unamended law is applied, then compensation of Rs. 62,394/- is to be paid to the claimant respondent No. 1 being 60% of Rs. 1,03,990/- on account of loss of earning capacity as mentioned in S. No. 4 of Part II of Schedule I, whereas the learned Commissioner has granted the compensation of Rs. 89,424/- alongwith 12% interest.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the claimant respondent No. 1 has argued that it is the law, which is applicable on the date of the decision, which is to be applied and not the law on the date of the accident. Moreover, according to him, difference between the compensation calculated under the unamended law and the amended law is a small one, hence, the impugned award being just and proper deserves to be upheld.;