Joginder Kaur and Another vs Mota Singh and Others

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—Learned counsel for the appellants states that service upon respondent No. 1 be dispensed with. Ordered accordingly.

On the request of counsel for the parties, the main case is taken on Board.

FAO No. 540 of 2000 (O & M)

This is claimants'' appeal challenging the impugned order dated 24.09.1999 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner & Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, Patiala. As per the claim petition, Baljit Singh son of Jaswant Singh met with an accident on 20.07.1991 during the course of his employment with respondent No. 1. According to the claimants-appellants, the deceased was drawing Rs. 1500/- per month as wages from respondent No. 1 and his age was 30 years at the time of accident. Accordingly, the claimants-appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 1.00 lack as lump-sum compensation.

The claim petition was contested by the respondents. Respondent No. 1, in his written statement, admitted that the vehicle in question was owned by him and Baljit Singh, who was his employee, met with an accident on 20.07.1991. He further stated that the vehicle was fully insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Phagwara-respondent No. 2.

Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company controverted the claim petition by filing a separate written statement raising various preliminary objections and denying its liability. Further dispute was raised with regard to the income and age of the deceased.

On consideration of the evidence on record, the Commissioner held that Baljit Singh (since deceased) was 35 years of age at the time of his death and was drawing Rs. 1500/- per month as salary; however, while calculating the compensation his salary was taken at Rs. 1000/- per month and the compensation was worked out by applying a multiplying factor of 197.06 x 4 holding that the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs. 78,824/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till such time the compensation is actually paid. The respondents were held jointly and severally responsible to make the payment.

In the instant appeal, the claimants-appellants are seeking higher compensation.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the compensation has been assessed on the lower side, as Baljit Singh (since deceased) was 30 years of age at the time of his death. Moreover, admittedly his income was Rs. 1500/- per month whereas the same has been taken at Rs. 1000/-, and thus, the compensation should have been worked out by applying a multiplier of 207.98 instead of 197.06. Thus, according to learned counsel for the appellants, the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:

Whether the compensation arrived at by the Commissioner is sustainable in law?

However, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has brought to the notice of this Court that as per the provisions of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, the maximum limit of income of a workman was to be taken at Rs. 1000/- per month at the time of accident in question. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to prove the age of the deceased at 30 years and thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has very fairly stated that in the instant case, though the multiplying factor of 197.06 has been applied correctly but the compensation has been calculated wrongly and in fact, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 98,530/-.

In view of the submissions made above, this appeal is allowed to the extent of holding that the claimants-appellants are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 98,530/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 17.07.1992 till such time the compensation is actually paid. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to make the aforesaid payment. Let the amount be calculated and paid to the claimants-appellants within two months from today.