Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the award dt. 28.8.1998 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, Jaipur District -I in WCCF 46/1993 whereby claim petition of the claimant was allowed and they have been granted compensation in the amount of Rs. 1,75,960/ -. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the claimant -respondents 1 to 4 filed an application under the provisions of Workman Compensation Act, 1923 on 18.12.1993 before the Court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District Jaipur claiming compensation Rs. 87,980/ - and further penalty of Rs. 43,990/ - against the appellant and respondent No. 5 on account of the alleged loss suffered by them due to death of Suresh Kumar during course of employment on 5.6.1992 when he was working as driver on Jeep No. GJ 2 A 1782 belonging to respondent No. 5 which was being driven by the deceased himself. After affecting service of notice the appellant insurance company filed reply to the claim petition on 6.5.1994. During the pendency of the claim petition the appellant deposited Rs. 87,980/ - on 9.2.1998 vide cheque No. 871691 and the said amount was accept by the claimants. The owner of the vehicle despite service of notice did not appear before the Commissioner. It has been stated that vide order dt. 6.5.1998 the claimants accepted amount of Rs. 87,980/ - and thereafter then the claim petition was proceeded only with a view to decide the penalty to be imposed against the owner of the vehicle. The Commissioner vide order dt. 28.8.1998 decided the claim petition holding that the claimants are entitled to get amount as per the amended provisions and as such further awarded Rs. 87,980/ - directing the insurance company to pay this amount within 60 days. Thereafter the insurance company filed a review petition before the Commissioner and the same was also decided on 30.6.2000 rejecting the review petition and maintaining the order dt. 28.8.98. Mr. Virendra Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has argued that the impugned award dt. 28.8.1998 is absolutely illegal, and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the insurance company has only argued the point that the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 was amended by the Act No. 30/95 effective from 15.9.1995 and the accident in the present case took place on 5.6.1992 hence the benefit of the amended provisions cannot be given to the claimants and the award is to be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Ashok Mehta, Sr. Advocate appearing for the claimants has argued that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner after considering the documents and evidence of the claimants, awarded the compensation as per the amended provisions. The award of the Compensation Commissioner cannot be said to be perverse.;