Supreme Court has awarded an enhanced compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 to the kin of a deceased employee, while holding that the objective of the Act, 1923 is dispensation of social justice. The Bench took an empathetic view and instead of remanding the matter back to High Court for re-consideration, it has itself awarded enhanced compensation to the deceased’s family.
SCOI held that when the wife of the deceased employee deposed his income on oath and the Employer admitted the same, then by no stretch of imagination the Deputy Labour Commissioner could have awarded lower compensation on minimum wage rate.
“The insurer of the offending vehicle having filed the written statement seems to have not cross examined the claimants and their witnesses. Thus, the claim lodged by the claimants seeking for compensation would not partake the character of a “contested claim” as stipulated under the notification issued by the appropriate Government under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the W.C. Act”
Having regard to the object of the Act which envisages dispensation of social justice, we are of the considered view that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation fell in error in arriving at a conclusion that claimants’ income is to be construed at Rs.3,900/- p.m. or the minimum wage to be computed should be at Rs.150/- per day in the absence of any proof of income. The written statement filed by the employer would be a complete answer to this, inasmuch as it is categorically admitted by the employer that deceased was drawing Rs.6,000/- per month as wages. The deceased was a truck driver and had four mouths to feed at the time of his demise in the year 2011. By no stretch of imagination, it can be construed that income which he was earning as claimed by his wife in her statement made on oath can be construed as excessive or not commensurate with the wages earned by a truck driver in the year 2011.”
‘REPORTABLE’
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3904 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10447 of 2019)
MAMTA DEVI & ORS. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
Leave granted.
1) A challenge is laid to the correctness and
legality of the judgment dated 01.10.2018 passed in
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 777 of 2014 by the High
Court of Judicature at Patna, whereunder, the
appeal filed by the claimants assailing the order
dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Deputy Labour
1
Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation, in CWC No. 24 of 2011 allowing the
claim petition in part, directing the opposite
party No. 1 – Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited (first respondent herein) to pay
compensation to the tune of Rs.4,31,671/- has been
set aside, on the ground that the dispute raised
was a contested case and it is coram-non-judice.
2) We have heard the arguments of Mr. Atil Inam,
learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as
also Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 1, and perused the case papers.
3) Appellants/Claimants are wife, son and parents
of late Sri Vakil Choudhary who had been employed by
the second respondent as truck driver and had met
with a road accident in the night of 21.04.2011 at
10.30 p.m. and as a result of the accidental
injuries sustained, succumbed to the same. Hence,
seeking compensation on account of death occurring
during the course of employment and contending
inter alia that he used to earn Rs.6,000/- p.m. as
2
wages from his employer, claim petition was lodged
before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cumCommissioner for Workmen Compensation. On notice
being issued, the insurer of the offending vehicle
appeared and filed written statement but,
thereafter, the matter was not pursued further by
the respondents. On the basis of the material
evidence that came to be placed by the claimants,
the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for
Workmen Compensation adjudicated the claim and
awarded a sum of Rs.4,31,671/- and ordered for
payment of interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the
date of the accident till the amount is deposited.
To award said compensation, Tribunal considered the
income of the deceased at Rs.150/- per day and
computed the total monthly income for 26 working
days at Rs.3,900/- p.m. and half of the same, at
Rs.1,950/- as loss of income to the claimants and
adopting the relevant multiplier/factor as
stipulated under the The Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1923 (VIII of 1923)(hereinafter referred to as ‘W.C.
Act’ for brevity) at 221.37, determined the total
compensation accordingly.
3
4) This Award was challenged by the claimants as
being abysmally on the lower side has resulted in a
worsened scenario viz., the Award itself was held to
be one without jurisdiction viz., Deputy Labour
Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation had no jurisdiction on the premise that
it was a contested matter on account of the written
statement having been filed by the insurer and there
being a embargo as per notification issued under
Section 20(1) and (2) of the W.C. Act.
5) By virtue of the power vested under sub-Section
(1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the
appropriate Government had issued notification
whereunder under clause (a), the presiding officers
of the Labour Court were entrusted with adjudication
of claims of all contested cases arising under the
Act.
6) As could be seen from the impugned order, the
only reasoning adopted for arriving at a conclusion
that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner
4
for Workmen Compensation Commissioner had no
jurisdiction or the fact which weighed in the mind
of the High Court to non-suit the claim was on
account of the written statement having been filed
by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who were also
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation.
7) The records on hand would disclose that there
was no further contest of the claim petition by
them. On the other hand, the employer had clearly
admitted the averments made in the claim petition
filed by the claimants. In other words, there was
no contest. The insurer of the offending vehicle
having filed the written statement seems to have not
cross examined the claimants and their witnesses.
Thus, the claim lodged by the claimants seeking for
compensation would not partake the character of a
“contested claim” as stipulated under the
notification issued by the appropriate Government
under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the W.C. Act. On
this count itself, it has to be held that High Court
fell in error in arriving at a conclusion that claim
5
petition was not maintainable before the Deputy
Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation and claimants had to pursue their
grievance before the jurisdictional Labour Court.
8) In the normal course, we would have remitted
the matter back to the High Court for adjudicating
the appeal on merits. However, we desist from doing
so for the simple reason that the first claimant
being a widow, the second claimant being the son and
the third and the fourth claimants being the parents
of the deceased are still awaiting for a reasonable
compensation to be awarded.
9) Hence, we have heard the learned Advocates
appearing for the parties on the issue of quantum of
just compensation which requires to be awarded to
the claimants.
10) At this juncture itself, it would be apt and
appropriate to note that the insurer viz., the first
respondent herein pursuant to the Award passed by
the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for
Workmen Compensation has deposited the award amount
as submitted before this Court by the learned
6
counsel. The insurer also did not assail the Award
passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cumCommissioner for Workmen Compensation dated
10.10.2014. In other words, it accepted its
liability and is stated to have satisfied the Award
passed. When this being the factual position, we
would have to necessarily examine as to whether
compensation awarded in favour of claimants is in
terms of the statutory mandate.
11) Having regard to the object of the Act which
envisages dispensation of social justice, we are of
the considered view that the Deputy Labour
Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation fell in error in arriving at a
conclusion that claimants’ income is to be construed
at Rs.3,900/- p.m. or the minimum wage to be
computed should be at Rs.150/- per day in the
absence of any proof of income. The written
statement filed by the employer would be a complete
answer to this, inasmuch as it is categorically
admitted by the employer that deceased was drawing
Rs.6,000/- per month as wages. The deceased was a
truck driver and had four mouths to feed at the time
7
of his demise in the year 2011. By no stretch of
imagination, it can be construed that income which
he was earning as claimed by his wife in her
statement made on oath can be construed as excessive
or not commensurate with the wages earned by a truck
driver in the year 2011.
12) Thus, the irresistible conclusion which we have
to draw is, the unchallenged statement of the wife
of the deceased who had deposed that her husband was
earning Rs.6,000/- per month deserves to be accepted
as gospel truth. We see no reason for disbelieving
her statement.
13) In the light of the aforestated discussion, the
quantification of the compensation will have to be
redetermined by construing the income of the
deceased at Rs.6,000/- and after deducting 50 per
cent of the same loss of income to the claimants
will have to be held at Rs.3,000/- per month and
adopting the appropriate factor having regard to the
fact that the deceased was 22 years at the time of
his accidental death, the appropriate multiplier
would be 221.37. Thus, the compensation that the
8
claimants would be entitled to would be Rs.3,000 X
221.37 which is equal to Rs.6,64,110/- (Rupees Six
Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred and Ten only).
14) The mandate of the Act insofar as payment of
interest is concerned is clear and unambiguous viz.,
the claimants would be entitled to interest @ 12 per
cent per annum from one month after the date of
accident till date of payment. Thus, claimants
would be entitled to the interest accordingly,
excluding the amount which is said to have been paid
or deposited by the first respondent-insurer.
15) For the reasons aforestated, we allow this
appeal in part and set aside the impugned judgment
dated 01.10.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Application
No. 777 of 2014 by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna and award a compensation of Rs.6,64,110/-
(Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred
and Ten only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from one
month from the date of accident till date of payment
excluding the amount already paid or deposited by
the first respondent-insurer.
9
16) The balance amount shall be deposited by the
first respondent-insurer before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation, Magadh Division, Gaya, in C.W.C. Case
No.24 of 2011 expeditiously and at any rate, within
six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of
this order.
17) Costs made easy.
………………………………………………………….J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
………………………………………………………..J.
[ ARAVIND KUMAR ]
New Delhi;
May 19, 2023.
10