Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Sarojini Devi and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—1. In this appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, appellant who is the insurer, has assailed the award dated 17.7.2014, passed by Commissioner (Employees Compensation), Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in WCA No. 44/2013, titled as Smt. Sarojini Devi and others vs. Bhumi Geo Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and another, whereby following amount stands awarded in favour of the respondent herein:-

"21. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion the petitioners are held entitled to the following compensation:-

The compensation amount shall be apportioned between the petitioners as follows:-

Petitioner No. 1= Rs. 7,73,782/-

Petitioner No. 2= Rs. 6,00,000/-

Petitioner No. 3= Rs. 6,00,000/-"

The appeal stood admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether the learned Commissioner below was right in taking the income as Rs. 12,903/- per month, for the accident taken place on 5-02-2010 falling between period of amendment in the Act on 18-01-2010 and Central Government Notification dated 31-05-2010?

Whether learned Commissioner below is right in directing the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident?

Whether the appellant being Insurance Company is liable to pay interest on the insured amount under Employees Compensation Act?

Insofar as substantial questions of law No. 2 and 3 are concerned, record reveals that in the Insurance Policy, there is no condition of exclusion of payment of interest. As such, it cannot be held that the Commissioner (Employees Compensation) erred in awarding interest in terms of the impugned award. Parties are governed by their contractual obligations and in view of the statutory provisions, claimants are entitled to interests in accordance with law. To this extent, no error can be found with the findings returned by the authority below.

Insofar as substantial question of law No. 1 is concerned, one finds the findings returned in Para-17 of the impugned award to be illegal, perverse and not based on the correct and complete appreciation of law.

It is not in dispute that Jeevan Singh expired in the course of his employment. He was employed as a Driver with respondent No. 1 and died in a motor vehicle accident. That claimants are the dependent legal heirs, also stand established through the testimony of petitioner No. 1, Smt. Sarojini Devi. Certificate of employment (Ex. RB) is on record. Deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 12,903/- per month at the time of the accident.

It is a matter of record that with the Workmen Compensation Amendment Act, 2009, the original explanation II after Clause (b), stood omitted and in place thereof the following provision stood inserted:-

"(1B) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, for the purposes of sub-section (I), such monthly wages in relation to an employee as it may consider necessary."

It is also a matter of record that vide notification dated 31.5.2010, the amount of monthly wages, required to be considered for awarding compensation was fixed to be Rs. 8,000/-.

Undisputedly, the Act stood amended w.e.f. 18.1.2010, i.e. prior to the death of the deceased which took place on 5.2.2010. Thus with the issuance of notification dated 31.5.2010, claimants were held entitled to compensation, based on the monthly wages of only Rs. 8,000/-. Learned counsel for the claimants fairly conceded to such situation.

In this view of the matter, the impugned award dated 17.7.2014, is modified to the following extent. Figure of Rs. 12,903/-, so taken as monthly income of the deceased, is statutorily required to be reduced to Rs. 8,000/-. As such, claimants shall be entitled to compensation in the following terms:-

The petitioner No. 1 shall be entitled to 60% of the aforesaid amount whereas petitioners No. 2 and 3 who are minor, shall be entitled to 20% each. The amount stands modified in favour of petitioner No. 1, keeping in view the fact that she has to bring up her minor children and undertake their educational expenses. Needless to add, the shares of the minors shall not be released.

Registry is directed to call for the amount deposited before the Commissioner (Employees Compensation), Chamba and remit it to the bank account of petitioner No. 1, in terms of CMP No. 11227/2015.

The excessive amount is directed to be released in favour of the appellant, which shall be released upon furnishing full particulars.

In view of the aforesaid observation(s), present appeal stands disposed of, so also, pending application(s), if any.