Ranglal Giri v. Rameshwar Pandit

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellants : Ms. Saumya Pandey, Advocate Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate Ms. Sugandha Jaiswal Poddar, Advocate Order No.17 / Dated : 16.01.2025 ------ Instant appeal is preferred under Section 30(1)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 against the award dated 22.06.2010 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner cum Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Ranchi in C.W.C. Case No.01/06.

The appellants are the dependents of Satendra Kumar Giri, who was working as a Driver of a truck bearing registration no.WB-23/7398 and the owner of vehicle was respondent no.1. He died in a motor vehicle accident on 17.08.2005 at 4 ‘O’ Clock in the morning while driving the said truck on NH 33.

The claimants preferred compensation case before the Labour Commissioner claiming the income of the deceased, to be Rs.5000/- per month and 27 years of age at the time of accident. The said vehicle was 1 under insurance cover of respondent no.2 which was valid from

31.03.2005 to 30.03.2006. The claim of compensation was allowed for a sum of Rs.2,39,157/- taking the minimum wage of the deceased and 27 years as his age at the time of accident.

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of appellants that respondent no.2 admitted the income of the deceased to be Rs.5000/- per month, but despite this, the learned Commissioner has computed compensation by taking Rs.2239.61 monthly as the minimum wage with DA. Further, under Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the admissible interest was 12%, but no interest has been awarded, with the penal interest of 9% if the payment was not made within 60 days from the date of order. 5. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel on behalf of Insurance Company argued that in a uncontested case under Section 20(1)(2) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the claim of compensation is to be preferred before the Court of Commissioner for workman compensation and in case of contest, the same is preferred before the Labour Court. When the claim is preferred in terms of Section 20 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner, the income is computed under Section 4 (Explanation II) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the compensation is to be computed by taking wages of the workman not exceeding Rs.4000/- per month under Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, it is apparent that there was incontrovertible evidence that the deceased was a driver of a truck and considering his occupation, wages of Rs.5000/- per month salary cannot be said to unreasonable.

The maximum wage cap at the time of the accident as on

17.08.2005 was Rs.4000/-. Taking the age of the deceased at the time of 2 accident to be 27 years as per the date of birth of 01.02.1980 in the driving license, a factor of 213.57 will be applicable as per Schedule IV of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The final compensation amount will work out to Rs.2000/- (50% of the monthly salary) x 213.57 = 4,27,140/-.

The Appellants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,27,140/- with 12% interest in equal shares per annum from the date of accident. The Insurance Company- United Insurance Co. Ltd., is directed to make payment within a month of the order. Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed in favour of Appellants. Anit (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) 3