Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923: s.4 – Victim-deceased was working as a helper in a truck belonging to second respondentemployer – On the fateful day, while helper was making arrangements for loading of rice bags, the driver of the truck allegedly lost control of truck and dashed into the helper who struck against a tree on the side of road – He succumbed to his injuries next day – Parents of the deceased filed claim petition under the 1923 Act – Deceased was 24 years old at the time of accident and was receiving a salary of Rs. 2400 per month and Rs. 25/- everyday toward food expenses – Commissioner held that in terms of s.4 of the Act, where the death of a workman results from an injury, compensation shall be an amount equal to fifty percent of the monthly wages of the deceased multiplied by the relevant factor – The relevant factor for 24 years being 218.47, Commissioner determined compensation at Rs.2.64 lacs – First respondent was directed to pay compensation along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realization – High Court modified the award by reducing the compensation to Rs.1.98 lacs – High Court proceeded on the basis that there was no material on the record to indicate that the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of death was Rs.2,400 – High Court consequently proceeded on the basis of a minimum wage of Rs.910, to which a multiplier of 218.47 was applied resulting in a recomputed compensation of Rs 1.98 lacs – On the point of interest, High Court held that there was no provision in the Act to grant interest on the compensation from the date of the accident – Subsequently, the payment of interest was reduced from 12% to 8% from the date of award till realization – Instant appeal filed by parents of deceased – Held: The claim was not disputed by the employer – There was absolutely no basis for the High Court to reduce the award on the ground that there was no material to establish the salary that the deceased was earning at the time of the accident – There was no justification for the insurer to take a matter involving such a paltry sum of compensation based on the facts of the case to the High Court and to allow a poor farmer and his wife who have already lost the solace of an earning member of the family into a long drawn out litigation – Rs.25 that was paid by as food expense by the employer would fall within the ‘special expenses that he is entitled to by the nature of his employment’ which is specifically excluded by the provision – Therefore, the total compensation to be paid is as follows: (50% of 2400) x 218.47= Rs. 2,62,164 – First respondent is directed to pay said amount along with an interest of 12% from the date of accident till it is realised – In addition, the appellants shall be entitled to costs quantified at Rs
1 lakh towards for meeting their costs and expenses of the proceedings which have been conducted in the courts below. Disposing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Families of the victims of motor accidents cannot realize rights under law so long as litigation continues to be a stratagem and source of harassment and torture. In the present case, the claim was on the basis that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs 2,400 per month. The claim was not disputed by the employer. There was absolutely no basis for the High Court to reduce the award on the ground that there was no material to establish the salary that the deceased was earning at the time of the accident. There was no ground to proceed on the basis of the minimum wage, particularly when there was nothing untoward or exaggerated in the claim for compensation based on the salary which was earned by the deceased. The second respondent has in his written statement and affidavit, stated that the deceased helper was receiving a salary of Rs 2400/month. This statement has not been discredited. The deceased was an informal worker, who was working as a helper in a transport business under the second respondent, earning a meagre wage of Rs. 2400 at the time of the accident. Such employees are not provided receipts on the payment of wages, nor can it be reasonably assumed that the employer would maintain receipts for the payment of wages to his employees. [Paras 7, 8][150-C-G]
2. There was no justification for the insurer to take a matter involving such a paltry sum of compensation based on the facts of the case to the High Court and to allow a poor farmer and his wife who have already lost the solace of an earning member of the family into a long drawn out litigation. The judgment and order of the High Court would have to be set aside. Section 2(m) of the Act defines ‘wages’ to include “any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than a travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a *[employee] towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to a *[employee] to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment”. Therefore, Rs 25 that was paid by as food expense by the employer would fall within the ‘special expenses that he is entitled to by the nature of his employment’ which is specifically excluded by the provision. [Paras 9, 10][150-G-H; 151-A-C] North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 : [2018] 13 SCR 1043 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.