Smt. Gouraram Padma v. A. Upender Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3553 of 2004 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred against orders dated 26.07.2004 in W.C.No.283 of 2003 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad District, where under, Rs.3,57,413/- is granted as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: Appellant herein submitted application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of G.Sridhar Reddy, who is the husband of first appellant herein and father of appellants No.2 and 3 and son of appellants No.4 and 5. Appellants contended that the deceased was driver on Tipper No.AP 11W 2682 belonging to first respondent herein and he was drawing salary of Rs.5,000/- per month apart from Rs.100/- as daily batta. They further contended that on 11.10.
2002 while the deceased was discharging his duties as driver on Tipper while proceeding from Nizamabad to Ramayampet, he could not control the vehicle, as a result of which, dashed against lorry bearing No.MH 31-AP 2353 and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died due to the injuries. The lower authority conducted enquiry and on the basis of evidence produced by both parties awarded Rs.3,57,413/- as compensation by taking wages of the deceased as Rs.3,437/-. Now not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, appellants' preferred present appeal.
3. Heard arguments.
4.
Advocate for appellants submitted that the lower authority erred in not considering the salary of deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month besides daily batta of Rs.100/-. Though appellants are entitled to get more compensation they claimed only Rs.5,00,000/- and even that amount was not granted by the lower authority and that the order of lower authority has to be modified. He further submitted that the lower authority has not granted any interest on the compensation and that the claimants are entitled for interest.
5. On the other hand advocate for Insurance company submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to prove the monthly salary of deceased at Rs.5,000/- and daily batta of Rs.100/- and lower authority took minimum wage payable to the driver as per G.O.Ms No.30 dated 27.07.2000 fixed the compensation and that there is no error in the award. He further submitted that with regard to interest, appellants are not entitled for interest granted but in case any interest is the same should be denying at least for the period between dismissal of appeal and its restoration.
7. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is: Whether the Award of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad is legal, proper and correct?
POINT:
8. There is no dispute with regard to relationship of employee and employer between deceased and first respondent herein. There is also no dispute with regard to existence of valid policy as on the date of accident.
The main grievance of
appellants is that lower authority has not considered the claim of appellants for monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- and daily batta of Rs.100/-. As seen from the material except self-serving testimony of first appellant i.e., wife of the deceased, there is no material to show that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- besides daily batta of Rs.100/-. In the cross-examination, a specific suggestion was put to the witness PW.1 that the deceased was not getting monthly salary of Rs.5000/- and daily batta of Rs.100/-. In spite of that, no further material is produced before lower authority to substantiate the claim of appellants for monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- and daily batta of Rs.100/-.
As there was no cogent and convincing evidence with regard to salary of the deceased, lower authority has taken the wages of heavy vehicle driver in public motor transport as per G.O.Ms.No.30 dated 27.07.2000 and calculated the compensation. I do not find any wrong in the approach of lower authority in taking wages of the deceased/ driver in terms of G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 27.07.2000, wherein Government fixed minimum wages for heavy vehicle driver in public motor transport, therefore the objection of appellants with regard to salary of deceased cannot be sustained.
9. The other contention of appellants is that lower authority has not granted any interest on the compensation. Hon'ble Supreme court in SABERABIBI YAKUBBHAI SHAIKH AND OTHERS Versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS[1] held that interest has to be granted from the date of accident till the date of deposit. So, considering the same, applicant is entitled for interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit on the compensation granted by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour.
10. In view of the above referred judgment, appellants are entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. however they are not entitled for interest for the period between 31.03.2015 i.e., the date on which appeal is dismissed for default and this date i.e., the date on which the appeal is restored.
11. For these reasons, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed confirming the award but granting interest as indicated above. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________ S. RAVI KUMAR, J Date: 29-01-2016.
gvl [1] (2014)2 SCC 298