The minimum wage of Rs. 8,000/- should be considered for the purpose of calculating compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as per the amended Act of 2009.

ORDER :

M. Venkata Ramana, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against order of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Anantapur, in W.C. Case No. 39 of 2005 dated 22.02.2008. By the order under appeal, the respondents 1 to 3 together were awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,80,629.44 ps payable by fourth respondent and the appellant jointly and severally.

2. The appellant is the insurer. Respondents 2 and 3 were minors by the date of filing an application for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Anantapur (Commissioner for short) represented by the first respondent, who is their mother. The fourth respondent was the owner of the tractor-trailer involved in the accident concerned to this case. This tractor-trailer was insured with the appellant by the date of the accident.

3. The claim was on account of death of one Sri. P. Kasinath, a resident of Uravakonda of Anantapur District. The first respondent is his wife. Respondents 2 and 3 are their children.

4. The case of the respondents 1 to 3 before the Commissioner was that on 03.03.2005 at about 7.30 p.m., when the deceased Sri. P. Kasinath, was travelling in tractor-trailer AP 02 L 5256/5257 belonging to fourth respondent, it met with an accident at Marutla III Village, when this tractor-trailer was carrying on paddy hay. The accident was on account of the tractor suffering puncture to one of its tyres and the deceased Sri. P. Kasinath jumped out of the trailer when it was over turning. Sri. P. Kasinath died in that incident, in respect of which a case in Crime No. 15 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 337 and 304 IPC was registered against the driver of the tractor-trailer in Kudair Police Station.

5. Further case of the respondents 1 to 3 before the Commissioner was that it was in the course and during employment Sri. P. Kasinath died and while working for the fourth respondent. They further claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,500/- per month by the date of death, who was hale and healthy and was 37 years old by then. Thus, they claimed in all Rs. 4,00,000/- towards compensation payable by the appellant and the fourth respondent jointly and severally.

6. The fourth respondent remained ex parte before the Commissioner.

7. The appellant filed a written statement denying entire case set up by the respondents 1 to 3, disputing the status of Sri. P. Kasinath as a workman employed for the purpose of the offending tractor-trailer and that it is not liable to satisfy the claim, while calling it unnecessarily excessive.

8. Basing on the material and pleadings, the Commissioner settled the following issues for the purpose of enquiry.

1. Whether the deceased was a workman as per the provisions of the workmen compensation Act, 1923 and he met with the accident arising out of and in the course of employment resulting into death?

2. What is the age of the deceased workman at the time of accident?

3. What are the wages paid to the deceased workman at the time of accident?

4. What is the amount of compensation payable?

5. Who are liable to pay compensation?

9. Before the Commissioner, the first respondent examined herself as A.W. 1 and another witness A.W. 2 Sri. Allu Gangadhar, in proof of nature of the accident and to establish that the deceased was a labourer working for the fourth respondent. His evidence was also relied on before the Commissioner to establish the income of the deceased. Ex. A1 to Ex. A4 were marked during enquiry. On behalf of the appellant, no oral evidence was let-in nor any documentary proof.

10. Basing on the material, the Commissioner held that the deceased was employed as a labourer in the offending tractor-trailer by the fourth respondent and thus by the date of the accident, the relationship in between them was that of a workman and employer respectively. Finding that the material is sufficient to prove this accident and involvement of the offending tractor-trailer, applying G.O. Ms. No. 33