The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Chhoti Devi and Others

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ''the said Act''), challenging the award dated 28.5.01 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as ''the Commissioner'') in Claim Case No. WCAA/F2/98, whereby the Commissioner has awarded Rs. 2,33,350/- by way of compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3-claimants for the death of Shri Banwari Lal. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Prateek Kasliwal for the appellant. None is present for the respondents though the appeal has been called out twice for hearing.

The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the deceased Banwari Lal happened to be the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 and son of the respondent No. 3. The said respondents-claimants had filed the claim petition before the Commissioner claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,00,000/- under the said Act for the death of the said Banwari Lal, who had expired on 17.4.94 while he was driving the Truck No. RJ-19 G-0849 and met with the accident. According to the concerned respondents-claimants, the said truck belonged to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The Commissioner after appreciating the evidence on record awarded the compensation as stated hereinabove. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.

The learned counsel Mr. Prateek Sharma appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the court to the relevant provision of Section 4 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act and submitted that when the monthly wages of the workman exceeded Rs. 2,000/-, the monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and (b) of Section 4 was required to be taken as Rs. 2,000/- only, in view of the Explanation-II to Section 4 of the said Act. According to him the Commissioner has committed an error of law apparent on the face of record by awarding the compensation, taking the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/-, in place of Rs. 2,000/- and, therefore, the award is bad to the said extent.

In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant Section 4 as it stood at the relevant time when the accident in question took place. The same reads 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 twenty thousand rupees, whichever is more;

xxxx xxxxx xxxx

Explanation-I xxx xxxx xxxx

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

It is also pertinent to note that in case of death, the relevant factor as it stood at the relevant time was 153.09 as per Schedule-IV of the Act which was to be applied. From the bare reading of the said provision contained in Section 4, read with Explanation-II thereof, it clearly transpires that the calculation of the compensation under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 was subject to the provisions of the said Act and that as per Explanation-II, in a case where the monthly wages of the workman exceeded Rs. 2,000/-, his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) was deemed to be Rs. 2,000/- only. However, it appears that the Commissioner had awarded the compensation by considering the monthly wages of the deceased to the extent of Rs. 3,000/- and had applied the relevant factor 153.09 for the purpose of calculating the compensation. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Prateek Sharma for the appellant, relying upon the decision of the High Court of Orisa at Cuttack in the case of Janaki Barik Vs. Executive Engineer, Central Electrical Division and Another, the compensation was required to be awarded, considering the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs. 2,000/- and not Rs. 3,000/-. Hence, if the monthly wages of the deceased were taken as Rs. 2,000/-, an amount equal to 50% thereof, would come to Rs. 1500/- per month and if the relevant factor 153.09 was applied to the same, the compensation to be awarded to the respondents-claimants would come to Rs. 1,53,090/-. If the amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards funeral expenses is added to the said amount, the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 1,55,590/-. The Commissioner, therefore, has committed an error of law in misinterpreting the provisions contained in Section 4 of the said Act as it stood at the relevant time and, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be modified to the aforesaid extent.

In that view of the matter, it is held that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3-claimants would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 1,55,590/- only for the death of the deceased Banwari Lal. In view of the above, the appeal stands partly allowed, and the impugned award dated 28.5.01 stands modified accordingly.