Manju Rani Das VsDilip Kumar Kar

Deepak Gupta, C.J.—This appeal by the claimant has been filed against the award dated 05-05-2009 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S. (WC) 25 of 2006 and in this appeal mainly two claims have been made:

(i) That, the age of the deceased was 28 years, and not 35 years and compensation be assessed accordingly; &

(ii) That, the income of the deceased was not Rs. 3,000/- per month as taken by the learned Commissioner but Rs. 4,500/- per month if his tiffin allowance was taken.

As far as the first point is concerned, the claimant had filed the school transfer certificate of the deceased Sumal Das which showed that his date of birth was 05-01-1978 which would mean that he had only completed 28 years of age as on 22-08-2006, the date of accident. Therefore, it is held that the age of the deceased was 28 years, and not 35 years.

As far as the income of the deceased is concerned, there are two conflicting pieces of evidence. The first is the statement of the widow-claimant who appeared in the witness box and stated that the deceased was employed as a labourer on the vehicle in question. She has also stated that the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs. 3,000/- per month and he was getting Rs. 50/- per day as tiffin allowance. The grievance of the claimant is that the tiffin allowance has not been taken into consideration while assessing the compensation. When this witness was cross-examined, a suggestion was put to her that her husband was only a casual labourer. A suggestion was also put to her that he was not being paid salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month and nor was he getting any tiffin allowance.

Sri Pramath Nath, the attorney of defendant No. 1, the owner of the vehicle, stepped into the witness box and stated that the deceased was only a casual labourer and not appointed on permanent basis. According to him, the deceased was not a permanent employee. No question was put in cross-examination to this witness with regard to the income or the tiffin allowance. There is no cross-examination whatsoever on behalf of the claimant to this witness.

Therefore, as far as the question of income is concerned, that has been decided by the learned Commissioner on the basis of the evidence recorded before him. His finding may be right or wrong but this finding cannot be said to be perverse. There is no substantial question of law involved as far as this finding is concerned. In this view of the matter, I hold that the income of the deceased was rightly assessed to be Rs. 3,000/- but since the age of the deceased was 28 years, the relevant factor would be 211.79 and, therefore, the compensation payable works out to Rs. 3,17,685/-.

The learned Commissioner has awarded interest only after one month from the date of judgment if the compensation is not paid within one month. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, , the interest should have been awarded from the date of accident and not from one month thereafter.

Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The award of the learned Commissioner is modified and the compensation is enhanced from Rs. 2,98,090/- to Rs. 3,17,685/-, i.e., by Rs. 19,595/-. On the awarded amount, the claimant shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till payment/deposit of the amount. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount of compensation along with interest in the Registry of this Court within four months from today after deducting/adjusting the amount, if any, already paid/deposited by it along with proof of such earlier deposit.

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Send down the lower court records forthwith.