Nisha Devi Etc. v. Isham Singh Etc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 17.03.2026 NISHA DEVI ETC.
....Appellants
Versus
ISHAM SINGH ETC.
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present:
None for the appellants.
Mr. Tarun Jindal, Advocate and Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Claimants are in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by way of modification in the impugned order dated 19.02.2001 passed by Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now known as the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and hereinafter referred to as the 1923 Act).
The claim petition relates to death of Ramesh Kumar, who was employed as cleaner-cum-second driver with respondent No.1 and lost his life while on duty on 25.08.1999.
2.3.
As per the claimants, the deceased was paid Rs.2,500/- per month by the employer along with other perks. There being no documentary evidence to prove the same, the Commissioner relied on the minimum
notified wages by the State on the date of accident under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as '1948 Act') and assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.1,814/- per month and awarded compensation accordingly. While granting interest Commissioner awarded interest @ 12% per annum for the period commencing from date of filing of claim petition till the date of award and further 12% future interest after 30 days time period from the date of award.
3.
Having heard counsel for the respondent and after carefully perusing the records of the case, this Court finds that the Commissioner erred in relying upon the minimum wages notified by the State under 1948 Act ignoring the mandate of Section 4 of 1923 Act which was in vogue on the date of accident. Section 4 as was in operation on the date of accidents reads as under:
"4.
Amount of compensation.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:- (a) where death results an amount equal to [fifty per cent.] from the injury of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor;
or an amount of [fifty thousand rupees], whichever is more;
(b) where permanent total an amount equal to [sixty per cent] of disablement results the monthly wages of the injured from the injury workman multiplied by the relevant factor;
or an amount of [sixty thousand rupees], whichever is more;
Explanation I.- For the purposes of Cl. (a) and Cl. (b), "relevant factor", in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due; Explanation II.- Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed [two thousand rupees], his monthly wages for the purposes of Clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be [two thousand rupees] only, xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx"
4.
In view of the mandate of Section 4, the wages of the deceased Ramesh Kumar for the purpose of computing compensation under Section 4 of 1923 Act are taken to be Rs.2,000/- per month. Keeping in view his age at the time of death i.e., 32 years relevant factor in terms of Schedule IV would be 203.85. Accordingly, the compensation would be reworked as under:
203.85 Rs.2,000/- 50/100 = Rs.2,03,850/- 5.
The other modification that needs to be made is that the claimants need to be awarded interest @ 12% per annum in view of mandate
of Section 4A of 1923 Act, for the period commencing from 30 days after the date of accident i.e., 30 days after 25.08.1999 till the date of actual realization.
6.
Needless to say anything already paid shall be set off and adjusted.
7.
With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed off. 8.
Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed off. March 17, 2026 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No