C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) SINCE these two appeals arise out of the same accident they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) ALLEGING that their son Krishnaiah, hereinafter referred to as the deceased , who was employed by one R. Balakrishna reddy on his truck bearing No. AP 11-V 7326 as a driver on a monthly salary of rs. 4,000 died due to an accident that occurred on 27. 11. 2001 at about 2 a. m. , out of and during the course of his employment with the said Balakrishna Reddy. V. Balram and Laxmamma, parents of the deceased filed W. C. No. 40 of 2002 before the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour- iii, Hyderabad seeking compensation of rs. 5,00,000 on the basis that the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of his death. Balakrishna Reddy, the employer of the deceased ( the employer ) admitted his employing the deceased with him and also the accident. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ( the insurer ) filed its counter denying the allegations in the claim petition and putting the claimants to proof of the averments in the petition. The father of the deceased examined himself as AW 1 and marked Exhs. A-1 to A-6. The employer examined himself as RW 1 and got marked exh. R-1. No oral evidence was adduced by the insurer, but Exh. D-1 was marked on its behalf. The Commissioner held that in view of the admission of RW 1 that he was paying Rs. 3,500 per month as salary to the deceased and in view of Exh. A-6 certificate issued by the Zilla Parishad high School, Lingal, Mahaboobnagar District, which shows the date of birth of the deceased as 14. 12. 1982, awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,96,165 to the claimants. Aggrieved by the order passed against it the insurer preferred C. M. A. No. 2963 of 2003 and aggrieved by the order of the commissioner in not granting interest on the compensation awarded, the claimants preferred C. M. A. No. 3192 of 2003.

( 3 ) THE points for consideration are: (i) to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled? and (ii) what is the rate of interest, if any, claimants are entitled to and from when? point (i):

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the insurer is that since there is no documentary evidence relating to the wage being paid to the deceased, the Commissioner was in error in accepting the ipse dixit of RW 1, for holding that his monthly salary was Rs. 3,500. Relying on Chinna gangappa v. B. Sanjeeva Reddy, 1999 act 719 (AP) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sukumari Das, 2001 ACJ 1347 (Orissa), he contended that when there is no reliable evidence to show the wage of a victim workman, wage payable as per the Minimum Wages Act only has to be taken into consideration for arriving at the compensation payable. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that since RW 1 himself admitted that he was paying Rs. 3,500 per month to the deceased there are no grounds to interfere with finding of the Commissioner relating to the wage of the deceased. It is also his contention that claimants are entitled to interest from the date of accident and so the commissioner was in error in not awarding interest. He placed strong reliance on ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi, 1998 acj 1 (SC); Kerala State Electricity Board v. Valsala K. , 2000 ACJ 5 (SC); Kashibhai rambhai Patel v. Shahabhai Somabhai parmar, 2000 ACJ 1435 (SC) and Divisional manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kotta Papaiah, 1999 (6) ALD 705 (AP), in support of his contention.

( 5 ) I am unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the claimants that since RW 1, the employer, admitted that he was paying Rs. 3,500 per month as wages to the deceased, the Commissioner rightly took that amount into consideration. RW 1, as employer, is bound to maintain the record of wages that are being paid to his employees. If really RW 1 was paying rs. 3,500 as wages, nothing prevented him from producing the documents showing payment of Rs. 3,500 per month as wages

Click Here to Read the rest of this document