AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Chauhan, J.—Aggrieved by the award dated 28.04.2003, passed by the Workman Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District Jaipur, whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,70,840/- along with 9% interest per annum to the claimants-Appellants, the claimants-Appellants have approached this Court.
Briefly the facts of the case are that on 1.2.2001, Chand Singh, who was the driver of truck, bearing registration No. HR-37-6384, was driving the truck from Jaipur to Gaziabad on National Highway No. 8. Early in the morning at 6:00 AM when Chand Singh saw another truck trying to overtake, rashly and negligently, he turned his truck to one side in order to avoid any collision. However, his truck struck against the milestone. The truck left the road and went into the fields. Subsequently, the truck turned turtle. Consequently, Chand Singh died on the spot. Since the claimants-Appellants lost their sole bread earner, they filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed their separate replies to the claim petition and denied the averments made therein. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed four issues. After hearing both the parties, vide award dated 28.04.2003, the learned Commissioner allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation as aforementioned. Still dissatisfied by the award, the claimant-Appellants have filed the present appeal.
Mr. Ram Singh Rathore, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, has vehemently contended that while assessing the income of Chand Singh, the learned Commissioner has not taken into account the fact that as a truck driver, he was paid a daily allowance of Rs. 50/-. Instead, the learned Commissioner has taken his income as merely Rs. 4,000/- per month. Secondly, the learned Commissioner has granted an interest of merely 9% per annum. According to the learned Counsel, it should be 12; per annum.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and perused the impugned award.
A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly shows that the income certificate (Ex-16) had shown Chand Singh''s income as merely Rs. 4,000/- per month. In the certificate, there was no mention of the fact that he was being paid Rs. 50/- as his daily allowance for being a truck driver. Thus, in the absence of any independent evidence, the learned Commissioner was certainly justified in concluding that the income earned by Chand Singh was Rs. 4,000/- per month. Hence, he was certainly justified in not including Rs. 50/- the alleged daily allowance as part of his income.
As far as the rate of interest is concerned, since at the prevalent time, the rate of interest was 9% per annum, the learned Commissioner was justified in giving the benefit of interest 9% per annum to the claimants-Appellants.
Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.