NAINITAL v. Champa Devi and others

Shri Ram Singh, aged 27 years, was employed as a driver with respondent no.4, the owner of vehicle No. UK-06G- 7781 (Alto Car). He was drawing a wage of Rs.15,000/- per month apart from food and other allowances. On

30.05.2018, the husband of appellant no. 1, namely, late Bhajan Singh, son of Shri Ram Singh, resident of Village Sorag, Post Sorag, Police Station & Tehsil Kapkot, District Bageshwar, was returning to his native village Sorag from Haldwani via the District Headquarters, Bageshwar, in vehicle no. UK-06G-7781 (Alto Car) belonging to the respondent no.4. When, the said vehicle reached near Dhur Band, Sorag, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kapkot, District Bageshwar, a wild animal suddenly crossed the road at a sharp curve, and while attempting to save the animal, the vehicle lost balance and fell into a gorge about 100 meters deep, resulting in the instantaneous death of the husband of appellant no. 1. Thereafter, the aforesaid incident was duly reported on 30.05.2018 at Police Station Kapkot, District Bageshwar. 2

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has submitted that the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate the employer–employee relationship was not established at the time of the incident; that the deceased himself was the owner of the vehicle, as he had purchased it; that, the learned Commissioner further erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month.

4. Learned counsel respondents/claimants has submitted that the award passed by learned Employees’ Compensation Commissioner is just and proper and, therefore, does not warrant any interference in the instant appeal.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the present appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- i. Whether the learned Commissioner has erred in law in assessing the wages of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month, whereas, in any case, the wages could not have exceeded Rs.8,000/- per month, inasmuch as the accident had occurred on

30.05.2018 and, on the said date, the maximum wage of an employee for the 3 purpose of computing compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act was restricted to Rs.8,000/- and not Rs.15,000/- .

6. It is an admitted position between the parties that, in terms of Notification No. S.O. 1258(E) dated

31.05.2010 issued by the Central Government, the monthly wages of a workman were fixed at Rs.8,000/- in accordance with Section 4(1)(b) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted relevant date for computing compensation is the date of the incident, and admittedly, on the said date, the wages of a workman stood fixed at Rs.8,000/- per month. However, learned Commissioner, while calculating the compensation, has erroneously taken the monthly wage of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-, which was a figure subsequently enhanced by the Central Government vide Notification dated

03.01.2020.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Sivaraman and 4 Others v. P. Sathish Kumar and Another, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 179, wherein it has been categorically held that the relevant date for determining the wages prescribed under the Notifications issued by the Central Government from time to time is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication.

9. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, it is evident that the date of accident is the determinative date for assessing the wages of the deceased for the purpose of computing compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. Admittedly, the accident in the present case occurred on 30.05.2018. As per Notification No. S.O. 1258(E) dated 31.05.2010 issued by the Central Government, the monthly wage of a workman stood fixed at Rs.8,000/- on the said date. The subsequent enhancement of wages to Rs.15,000/- per month vide Notification dated 03.01.2020 cannot be applied retrospectively to an accident, which occurred prior to the said notification. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Sivaraman and Others (supra), has also held that the relevant date for determining the applicable wage is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication. 5

10. In view of the foregoing, the award passed by the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bageshwar in E.C.A. Case No. 2 of 2021 is hereby modified to the extent that the wages of the deceased workman shall be recalculated at Rs.8,000/- per month instead of Rs.15,000/- per month.

11. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the awarded amount has already been deposited with the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, out of which 35% has been released in favour of the claimants.

12. The Employees’ Compensation Commissioner is accordingly directed to recalculate the total claim amount in accordance with this modification and release the balance amount due to the claimants. The remaining portion of the deposited amount, if any, shall be released in favour of the appellant/insurance company, upon the appellant/insurance company filing an appropriate application in this regard.

13. In view of the above, the instant appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. BS BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7 ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418755DC0 0A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH 6 (Alok Mahra, J.)

25.09.2025