MAC/1357/2014 of Punni Bai and Ors Vs Kailash Motwani and Anr on 24 December 2014

1. Kailash Motwani, aged about 40 yearsS/o Raghumal Motwani R/o In front ofLabour Commisner office KachhahariChowk Raipur (C.G.).S/o Raghumal Motwani R/o In front ofLabour Commisner office KachhahariChowk Raipur (C.G.).

2. The Oriental Insurance Company LimitedBy Branch Manager, Mandina BuildingJail road Raipur (C.G.).MISCELIANEAUSAPPEALU/S30OFEMPLOYEESCOMPENSATION ACT FOR THE ENHANCEMENT IN THEAWARDPASSEDBYTHECLAIMSCOMMISSIONERRAIPUR (C.G.\__ __ _- ^

v^.,;:

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Sinale Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1357 of 2014

AppellantsPunni Bai and othersClaimants

VERSUS

Respondents

Kailash Motwani and another

Present:Shri Rakesh Lodhi, counsel for the appellants.

ISIfc If

/^ W the instant Appeal under SectioN 3|r^f|he Employees'(^^l^tion Act (for short ^the,Act'), the appellantMIS&Bts haveligedthe award ^(^(g^j^g^ssed. by the Co^fi(g>ner,'theiployees'Compensati|j,y|ki8ft^U@ourt,Raipur(forsrtortCommissioner') inClaims ^g^|$|UC.Act/2010/Fatal.

2. Facts in brief are tha|,jd|1^1 Kartiram, who is the husband ofSAtt.appellant No.1 and fathepiints No.2 & 3 and the son ofrespondentsNo.4& 9|jF|(effiyiJa^||ccident on 28.11.2009 whiledischarging his duties as d%lttpgsniig?truck bearing registration No.CG04 ZC 6120.Due to extra ^^afl^<ltrain while unloading of iron rodsloaded in the said truck, the deceased sustained Cardio RespiratoryFailure resulting in his death. The said truckwas insured with respondentNo.2/lnsurance Company.As the death of Kartikram took place jn thecourse and arising out ofthe employment, the appellants/claimants hadfiled a claim petition before the Commissioner claiming for compensatiQnundertheAct.

3. Thecourt belowhas,after consideringthetotal facts andcircumstances of the case, particularly the evidence which has been ledon behalf of the appellants/claimants in respect of the age and salary ofthe deceased, reached to the conclusion that the appellants/claimants areentitled for compensation of Rs.2,91,172.

4. It is this award which is under challenge in the instant appeal.

5. The sole ground raised by counsel for the appellants is that in fact u o(v the calculation for compensation by the Commissioner i.e. the court belowhas not been properly made and in fact the appellants/claimants areentitled for an amount of Rs.3,11,970.He further submits that in theinstant case, the salary of the deceased was Rs.3,000 per month but thecourt below has not properly appreciated the same and has assessed thesalary for the purpose of calculation of compensation at Rs.2,800 andtherefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower sideand is liable to be enhanced.

6. Ifwe peruse the record, it would show that the Commissioner hasassessed the salary of the deceased to be Rs.2,800 based on theevidence of appellantyaiii.^tl|^wife of the deceased who, inher depositipfft'HliftstiWS iliB the time of accident,receivir^silary of Rs.700per week which odWs jl|Sutotal amount ofR^2^||yper month andit was on the basis of fflil^l^tement of^ipgilanVclaimant No.1 he,|wife;|>f||gideceased that the C@|yfti|sionerWas reached to the con6iu^i|r||;|a||||isalary received by the detfased atthe time of accident was Rsl%%®l||i|JWonth.

7. In view of above.it cai ii|rtt>| ^id that the court below has, in anymanner, committed an ei]K(|g%;c||\li3^|hile calculating the compensationpayable to the appella^^!a)r0|i!ts,^@ordin9ly, the instant appeal nothaving any substantial quli 8SBSHii,"1:he same fails and is accordinglyrejected..,.-..[.,..,.]

^P. Sam KoshyJudge