Vishwa Karma Motor Body Repairs @APPELLANT@Hash Yusuf Mohammad

The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 18.06.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, Udaipur in

Claim Case No.7/1996.Â

Briefly, the facts in the case are that Yusuf Mohammad, the respondent-claimant being the father of the deceased Farooq Hussain filed a claim

application stating therein that his son Farooq Hussain was working with the respondent No.1 and was paid Rs.1000/- per month by the respondent

No.2. His son deceased Farukh Hussain was doing the work of denting and painting in the workshop of respondent No.1. On 02.09.1995 while

the deceased Farooq was in employment of the appellantrespondent he died because of the pressure of work. The claim petition was preferred by

the respondent Yusuf Mohammad before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act for a suitable compensation to be awarded in the case.Â

The appellants-respondents filed a reply stating therein that the deceased had no co-relation with his concern and in the special plea the appellants

submitted that after the repairing work being performed on the Motorbody, the respondent No.5 Azad Painter was given a contract for doing the

painting work. The appellants were not aware that the deceased was employed for the purpose of painting at the Azad Painter Works and if he

was employed there then the appellants are not responsible for the claim.

The issues were framed and the evidence was recorded.

The statements of Mohammad Yusuf were recorded in which he stated that his son was employed with the appellantrespondent and the payment was

being done monthly by Dinesh Kumar. His son died during the course of employment of appellants. A postmortem report of the deceased was

also placed on record.

The learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act, after dealing with the issue, concluded finding on issue No.1 that deceased Farooq Hussain

was in the employment of appellantsrespondents No.1 and 2 and thus the fact the deceased being in the employment of the appellant was proved.

The only contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that in view of the statements of Mohd. Yusuf and the postmortem report it cannot be

concluded that the death of deceased was due to or attributable to the work performed by the deceased at the workshop of the appellants. She

further placed reliance upon subclause 4 of Section 3 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 which shows that no compensation shall be payable to

the workman in respect of any deceased unless the deceased is directly attributable to a specific injury by an accident arising out of and in the Course

of employment. Therefore, she submits that the learned Tribunal was absolutely wrong in fastening the liability of compensation on the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshminarayana Shetty Vs. Shantha;

(2001) 0 Supreme (SC) 34510.

After the appeal of the employer was admitted by this Court the claimants preferred cross objections in the matter. In the cross objections, the

claimants have submitted that since the deceased died during the course of employment of the appellants, he is liable to be compensated by the

appellant.Â

It is further stated that the learned Commissioner has awarded interest @ 6% on the compensation amount which is very low and required to be

enhanced.Â

It is further stated that since the amount has not been paid within a period of 30 days, the claimant is entitled for a penalty amount @ 50% of the

compensation amount but only a lump sum amount of Rs.2,000/- has been paid towards the penalty amount.

It is further stated that the learned Commissioner has calculated and awarded compensation by multiplying the multiplicand with 40% only whereas it

should have been 60%.

Lastly, it is stated in the cross objections that since the deceased was receiving Rs.1,000/- per month salary, the learned Commissioner has calculated

the compensation by taking the income of deceased as Rs.572/- being the minimum wages instead of Rs.1,000/-.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the record of the case.

It is a fact which has been proved that deceased Farooq Hussain was in the employment of the appellant and was being paid per month by the

appellant No.2 Dinesh Kumar. While working at the workshop, the deceased died at the workshop on 02.09.1995 because of the work pressure or

a fact which is not known. Although there is no specific reason mentioned in the postmortem report with respect to the cause of death of the

deceased Farooq Hussain, therefore, it can safely be presumed that as per Section 3 if a personal injury is caused to a workman by an accident arising

out during the course of employment, the employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Workmen Compensation

Act.   Â

Admittedly Farooq Hussain died during the course of employment. Further, since there is no specific assertion that deceased was suffering from a

disease or was otherwise not fit which may be a cause of death, therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned Commissioner, Workmen

Compensation cannot be found fault with.

Since, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is not having any application in the present case as the death caused to Shri Farooq Hussain

was during the course of his employment with the appellants, therefore, the compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation

Act is just and proper.

As far as the multiplicand required to be multiplicated with 40% of the sum of multiplicand is concerned, the prevailing rate at the time of passing of

the order by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act was 40% only, and, therefore, no error was committed by the learned Commissioner.Â

Since there was no documentary proof or otherwise with respect to the payment of Rs.1,000/- per month as salary to the deceased, the learned

Commissioner was absolutely right in taking into consideration the minimum wages prevailing at the time of death of the deceased while computing the

monthly remuneration of the deceased from the employer.

The learned Commissioner has also awarded a penalty of a lump sum amount of Rs.2,000/-. Since, the payment was not done within a stipulated

period of 30 days from the date of death of the deceased in its discretion which appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

present case.

As far as the contention raised in the cross objections with regard to the amount of interest is concerned, the same has rightly been paid @ 6% as the

Act of 1923 provide for the compensation alongwith interest to be paid @ 6% to 12% and, therefore, the interest on award @ 6% is in accordance

with the provisions of law.Â

Therefore, the grounds on the basis of which the cross objections are raised are not convincing this Court to enhance the amount already awarded by

the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act vide its order dated 18.06.2001.Â

Having taken into consideration all these facts, I am of the view that no interference in the order dated 18.06.2001 passed by the learned

Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act is required, therefore, the same is upheld. The appeal as well as cross objection filed by the parties are

dismissed.