Smt. Shanti Devi and Others vs Sanjay Mamubhai Agrawal and Others

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act) seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Ajmer District, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as ''the Commissioner''), whereby the Commissioner has awarded Rs. 3,17,685/- with interest @ 12% per annum for the death of Girdhari Singh. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants-claimants had filed a claim petition before the Commissioner claiming compensation for the death of Girdhari Singh, who was the son of the appellant No. 1, husband of the appellant No. 2 and father of the appellant No. 3, who died in the accident allegedly occurred on 28.10.05. According to the appellant, the deceased was the employee of the respondent No. 1 and the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company. The Commissioner after considering the evidence on record awarded the compensation as stated hereinabove.

It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. J.P. Gupta for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is very meager as compared to the income and age of the deceased. According to him, the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and the Commissioner has committed an error in considering his income only Rs. 3,000/- per month. The court does not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. It appears that the appellants had not produced any document either to show the income of the deceased or the age of the deceased. It is needless to say that the appellants-claimants are expected to prove the income and age of the deceased by producing the cogent and reliable evidence. In absence of such evidence, the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month and age of the deceased as 28 years as mentioned in the postmortem report. The learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.