State of Himachal Pradesh vs Dhanwanti

Sanjay Karol, J.—Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that impugned order dated 11.1.2013, passed by the Commissioner, Employee''s Compensation, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in WCA No. 2/2 of 2013, titled as Dhanwanti and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others requires to be modified to a limited extent.

There is no dispute with regard to claimants'' entitlement. As such, findings returned by the trial Court on the rights of the claimants with regard to their entitlement for compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), are affirmed.

The age of deceased Shri Gagan Singh, predecessor of the claimants is also not in dispute. At the time of his death, Shri Gagan Singh was working as Bulldozer driver with the State. He was 53 years of age and drawing salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month.

In terms of impugned order, monthly income of the deceased has been taken to be not less then Rs. 8,000/- and by reducing it by half, the authority has applied Schedule IV, by taking into account age of the deceased. Thus, total amount awarded is Rs. 5,70,720/-. The factor applied is correct but the multiplicand of Rs. 4000/- is wrong.

For better appreciation of controversy in issue, relevant provisions of the Act are reproduced as under:-

Amount of compensation-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:-

(a) Where death results from the injury-an amount equal to [fifty per cent] of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of [eighty thousand rupees], whichever is more;

(b)... ... ... Explanation I... ... ... Explanation II-Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed [four thousand rupees], his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be [four thousand rupees] only;...

The provisions of the statute are unambiguously clear. Claimants were entitled for compensation in terms of the aforesaid provisions only on amount equal to 50% on monthly wages as stipulated in the explanation clause. In the instant case, amount of monthly wages, for determination of compensation could not have exceeded Rs. 2,000/-, which amount had to be multiplied by the relevant factor. It is clear that the authority erred in calculating such compensation. As such, impugned order, unsustainable on this ground is modified to the following extent:-

The claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,000/- multiplied by the relevant factor i.e. 142.68 = 270,307/- + interest as awarded by the authority below.

Apportionment of the compensation shall be as under:-

Smt. Dhanwanti widow of Sh. Gagan Singh- Rs. 1,20,360/- +interest.

Sh. Sandeep Kumar, S/o Sh. Gagan Singh- Rs. 55,000/-+interest.

Ms. Reena Devi, D/o Sh. Gagan Singh- Rs. 55,000/-+interest.

(a) Smt. Satya Devi, widow of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, son of Sh. Gagan Singh-- Rs. 25,000/-+interest.

(b) Amit Kumar, S/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, S/o sh. Gagan Singh-- Rs. 15,000/-+interest.

(c) Nitika, D/o Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, S/o Sh. Gagan Singh-- Rs. 15,000/-+interest.

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