AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biswanath Rath, J
This appeal involves a challenge to the judgment in E.C. Case No.19/2012 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-cum-Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Angul, solely on the aspect of decision involving Issue No.‘c’ by the Commissioner.
Heard Sri Amitav Das, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. In spite of notice, nobody appears for either the claimants or the
owner.
Advancing his submission Sri Das, learned counsel referring to the discussion on the Issue No.‘c’ submitted that there is no material to
establish the salary component of the driver at the relevant point of time so also the fooding allowance as claimed by the claimants and supported
through evidence by employer, opposite party no.1. It is in the circumstance, Sri Das submitted that taking the salary component at Rs.9,000/- per
month will be much higher side than it is actually paid at the relevant point of time and thus a request is made for reducing the compensation awarded
by the Commissioner in respect of the deceased driver.
Considering the submission of Sri Das and entering into the plea of the parties particularly the claimants and the owner, this Court finds though the
claimants claimed the deceased to have been receiving Rs.8,000/- per month besides Rs.100/- per day as fooding allowance working as a driver,
however the owner has come forward to say that he was paying the deceased a monthly remuneration of Rs.6,000/- besides the owner stated to have
been paying Rs.100/- to the driver towards fooding allowance. Even though the owner has thrown light on the payment aspect, but the opposite party
no.2, the Insurance Company, even they entered into cross-examination, this Court finds, in the attempt for cross-examination, opposite party no.2
could not be able to throw any light on the salary of the deceased. There is even no attempt to at least to bring any evidence in support of their case
involving the normal salary of the driver of the truck at the relevant point of time.
In the context involved herein and the matter being decided through the oral evidence having part support of the owner to the claim of the claimants
and particularly in absence of any evidence to contradict the statement of owner on this aspect, this Court finds, the Commissioner had no other option
than to accept the statement of the owner on the wage aspect as well as fooding allowance of the driver. It is in this view of the matter this Court
finds, there is no illegality in deciding the Issue No.‘c’ by the Commissioner. This Court, therefore is not inclined to entertain the challenge to the
judgment involved herein.
For the non-appearance of the claimants and as the compensation amount is already in deposit before the Commissioner, this Court while directing
the Commissioner to release the compensation amount along with accrued interest as on date in favour of the claimants, also considers the fact that
delay has already taken place in the meantime and claimants since did not enter appearance, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit a sum of
Rs.1,000/- before the Commissioner along with copy of the judgment of this Court within a period of two weeks, for enabling the Commissioner to
issue Special Messenger notice to the claimants to attend his office to receive the compensation amount.
For the observation of this Court hereinabove, the appeal sans merit, the same thus stands dismissed. No cost.