V.P.TYAGI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board raises a small question of law whether the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) is entitled to recover the entire amount of compensation which the Corporation is paying in monthly instilments to the wife of Shri K.H. Muniswami who was an employee of the appellant at the time when the fatal accident took place while Shri Muniswami was working on the electricity line in the course of his employment with the appellant.
(2.) SHRI K.H. Muniswami was a holder of insurance policy No. 15 312588 under the Employees State Insurance Scheme. Shri Muniswami was in the employment of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and on the day when he met with a fatal accident, that is on 6 -11 -66 he was working on the 33 K.V. Line Jumper of R.A.P.P. to change the phase sequence. While discharging his duties under his employment be met with the accident resulting in his instantaneous death. Thereafter Muniswami's wife Smt. Dhanalakshmi claimed compensation from the the respondent. The Corporation fixed the compensation at Rs. 10,080/ - and it is bung paid to the widow of Muniswami Smt. Dhanalakehmi on a monthly instilment basis. According to the statement filed before this Court on 2nd July, 1975, the Corporation has paid up till now Rs. 2,140/60 paise The Corporation claimed the entire amount of compensation from the Rajasthan State Electricity Board under the provisions of Section 66 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (here in after called the Act). A suit was filed in the court of the District Judge by the Corporation against the Board which was decreed and it is against this decree that the present appeal has been preferred by it. The only argument raised by Mr. Gupta, appearing on behalf of the Board is that at the time when the suit was instituted, Section 66 of the Act was deleted and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on the Board for the payment of compensation money to the Corporation under repealed provision of the law.
(3.) IT is admitted by learned counsel for the parties that at the time when the accident had taken place and the workman died on account of that accident, Section 66 of the Act was very much in vogue. This section deals with the Corporation's right to recover damages from the employer. It is not disputed that under the provisions of Section 66 of the Act the Corporation could have realized the amount of damages from the Rajasthan State Electricity Board if this provision had not been repealed when the Corporation went to the court of law to seek relief in these proceedings. It is, therefore, urged by Mr. Gopta that the cause of action for reimbursement in this case accrued to the Corporation when the claim of the widow of the appellant's employee was determined on 23rd of December, 1967, the damages became payable to the employee's wife only when they were determined and at the time of the determination of the damages, Section 66 was not in vogue as it had been repealed on 17th June, 1967. Learned Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, argues that the liability to pay the damages by 'he employer to the Corporation is a statutory one and the employer becomes liable to reimburse to the Corporation the damages paid by it, and that liability starts on the day when the accident had taken place as it is the law that fixes the liability and not the determination of the quantum of damages by the Corporation.;