MAMTA DEVI & ORS. versus THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR on 19 May 2023

1. A challenge is laid to the correctness and legality of the judgmentdated 01.10.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 777 of 2014 bythe High Court of Judicature at Patna, whereunder, the appeal filed bythe claimants assailing the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the DeputyDLabour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation,in CWC No. 24 of 2011 allowing the claim petition in part, directing theopposite party No. 1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited(first respondent herein) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,31,671/- has been set aside, on the ground that the dispute raised was a contestedEcase and it is coram-non-judice.

2. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Atil Inam, learned counselappearing for the appellants, as also Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned counselappearing for respondent No. 1, and perused the case papers.

3. Appellants/Claimants are wife, son and parents of late SriFVakil Choudhary who had been employed by the second respondent astruck driver and had met with a road accident in the night of 21.04.2011at 10.30 p.m. and as a result of the accidental injuries sustained,succumbed to the same. Hence, seeking compensation on account ofdeath occurring during the course of employment and contending interGalia that he used to earn Rs.6,000/- p.m. as wages from his employer,claim petition was lodged before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. On notice beingissued, the insurer of the offending vehicle appeared and filed writtenstatement but, thereafter, the matter was not pursued further by therespondents. On the basis of the material evidence that came to beH

placed by the claimants, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation adjudicated the claim andawarded a sum of Rs.4,31,671/- and ordered for payment of interest@ 6 per cent per annum from the date of the accident till the amountis deposited. To award said compensation, Tribunal considered theincome of the deceased at Rs.150/- per day and computed the totalmonthly income for 26 working days at Rs.3,900/- p.m. and half of thesame, at Rs.1,950/- as loss of income to the claimants and adoptingthe relevant multiplier/factor as stipulated under the The Workmen’sCompensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923)(hereinafter referred to as ‘W.C.Act’ for brevity) at 221.37, determined the total compensationaccordingly.

4. This Award was challenged by the claimants as being abysmallyon the lower side has resulted in a worsened scenario viz., the Awarditself was held to be one without jurisdiction viz., Deputy LabourCommissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation had nojurisdiction on the premise that it was a contested matter on account ofthe written statement having been filed by the insurer and there being aembargo as per notification issued under Section 20(1) and (2) of theW.C. Act.

5. By virtue of the power vested under sub-Section (1) and (2) ofSection 20 of the Act, the appropriate Government had issued notificationwhereunder under clause (a), the presiding officers of the Labour Courtwere entrusted with adjudication of claims of all contested cases arisingunder the Act.

6. As could be seen from the impugned order, the only reasoningadopted for arriving at a conclusion that the Deputy LabourCommissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen CompensationCommissioner had no jurisdiction or the fact which weighed in the mindof the High Court to non-suit the claim was on account of the writtenstatement having been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, whowere also respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Deputy LabourCommissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation.

7. The records on hand would disclose that there was no furthercontest of the claim petition by them. On the other hand, the employerhad clearly admitted the averments made in the claim petition filed bythe claimants. In other words, there was no contest. The insurer of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aoffending vehicle having filed the written statement seems to have notcross examined the claimants and their witnesses. Thus, the claim lodgedby the claimants seeking for compensation would not partake thecharacter of a “contested claim” as stipulated under the notificationissued by the appropriate Government under Section 20 (1) and (2) ofBthe W.C. Act. On this count itself, it has to be held that High Court fell inerror in arriving at a conclusion that claim petition was not maintainablebefore the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner forWorkmen Compensation and claimants had to pursue their grievancebefore the jurisdictional Labour Court.

C8. In the normal course, we would have remitted the matter backto the High Court for adjudicating the appeal on merits. However, wedesist from doing so for the simple reason that the first claimant being awidow, the second claimant being the son and the third and the fourthclaimants being the parents of the deceased are still awaiting for areasonable compensation to be awarded.D9. Hence, we have heard the learned Advocates appearing forthe parties on the issue of quantum of just compensation which requiresto be awarded to the claimants.

10. At this juncture itself, it would be apt and appropriate to noteEthat the insurer viz., the first respondent herein pursuant to the Awardpassed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner forWorkmen Compensation has deposited the award amount as submittedbefore this Court by the learned counsel. The insurer also did not assailthe Award passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-FCommissioner for Workmen Compensation dated 10.10.2014. In otherwords, it accepted its liability and is stated to have satisfied the Awardpassed. When this being the factual position, we would have tonecessarily examine as to whether compensation awarded in favour ofclaimants is in terms of the statutory mandate.

G11. Having regard to the object of the Act which envisagesdispensation of social justice, we are of the considered view that theDeputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for WorkmenCompensation fell in error in arriving at a conclusion that claimants’income is to be construed at Rs.3,900/- p.m. or the minimum wage to becomputed should be at Rs.150/- per day in the absence of any proof ofH

income. The written statement filed by the employer would be a completeanswer to this, inasmuch as it is categorically admitted by the employerthat deceased was drawing Rs.6,000/- per month as wages. The deceasedwas a truck driver and had four mouths to feed at the time of his demisein the year 2011. By no stretch of imagination, it can be construed thatincome which he was earning as claimed by his wife in her statementmade on oath can be construed as excessive or not commensurate withthe wages earned by a truck driver in the year 2011.

12. Thus, the irresistible conclusion which we have to draw is, theunchallenged statement of the wife of the deceased who had deposedthat her husband was earning Rs.6,000/- per month deserves to beaccepted as gospel truth. We see no reason for disbelieving her statement.

13. In the light of the aforestated discussion, the quantification ofthe compensation will have to be redetermined by construing the incomeof the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and after deducting 50 per cent of thesame loss of income to the claimants will have to be held at Rs.3,000/-per month and adopting the appropriate factor having regard to the factthat the deceased was 22 years at the time of his accidental death, theappropriate multiplier would be 221.37. Thus, the compensation that theclaimants would be entitled to would be Rs.3,000 X 221.37 which isequal to Rs.6,64,110/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand OneHundred and Ten only).

14. The mandate of the Act insofar as payment of interest isconcerned is clear and unambiguous viz., the claimants would be entitledto interest @ 12 per cent per annum from one month after the date ofaccident till date of payment. Thus, claimants would be entitled to theinterest accordingly, excluding the amount which is said to have beenpaid or deposited by the first respondent-insurer.

15. For the reasons aforestated, we allow this appeal in part andset aside the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2018 passed inMiscellaneous Application No. 777 of 2014 by the High Court of Judicatureat Patna and award a compensation of Rs.6,64,110/-(Rupees Six LakhsSixty Four Thousand One Hundred and Ten only) with interest @ 12%p.a. from one month from the date of accident till date of paymentexcluding the amount already paid or deposited by the first respondent-insurer.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1138SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

1138SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2023] 10 S.C.R.

A16. The balance amount shall be deposited by the first respondent-insurer before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner forWorkmen Compensation, Magadh Division, Gaya, in C.W.C. Case No.24of 2011 expeditiously and at any rate, within six weeks from the date ofreceipt of the copy of this order.

B17. Costs made easy.

Divya Pandey

(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)

Appeal partly allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H