The court upheld the Commissioner's compensation award, emphasizing that reasonable estimates for salary are acceptable in the absence of documentary evidence.

JUDGMENT :

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.

1. The present C.M.A is filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 against the Order in W.C.No.5 of 2002 dated 08.01.2004 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour for Workmen's Compensation, Adoni, Kurnool District.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:-

The deceased by name H. Imtiyaz Khan was working as driver of lorry bearing No.KA 36 A 1188 owned by O.P.No.I. While the lorry was being driven by the deceased on 07.12.2002, the lorry met with an accident and fell on the side of the road in the village limits of Adoni- Virupapuram road near Adoni town. The deceased died in the accident. The Adoni Taluk P.S., registered the Crime No.62/22002 under Section 337 and 304-A IPC. As the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident, employed by O.P.No.I and earning an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month as salary, the mother and the brothers of the deceased filed the claim for compensation.

3. The O.P.No.I remained ex parte. The O.P.No.II filed counter admitting the accident and the death of the deceased and admitted to the existence of the policy in respect of the offending lorry as on the date of the accident.

4. The claimant No.I i.e. the mother of the deceased examined herself as P.W.1 and filed Exs.A.1 to A.5 i.e. attested copy of FIR, attested copy of inquest report of deceased, attested copy of insurance policy, attested copy of P.M report of deceased and attested copy of driving license of the deceased. On behalf of O.P.No.II, P.Sreedhara Murthy was examined as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 and B.2 i.e. insurance policy and claim form filed by O.P.No.I.

5. The Commissioner after examining the evidence and the contentions of the respective parties awarded compensation of Rs.3,49,297/- with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of the petition till realization by holding both O.P.No.I and O.P.No.II jointly responsible for the compensation. Hence, the present Appeal.

6. In the grounds of appeal, the question of law urged was only with regard to payment of interest @ 6% p.a. and determination of salary @ Rs.3,500/- per month of the deceased.

7. Heard Sri V.V.N. Narasimham, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri J.Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

8. The insurance policy, accident, age of the deceased are not in dispute. It is contended by the learned counsel for the insurance company that in the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the salary of the deceased, it is not proper for the Commissioner to determine the same @ Rs.3,500/- per month and it was further contended that in the absence of any evidence, the minimum wages @ Rs.2,000/- per month prescribed by the Government for the driver should be adopted. The counsel for the respondent contended that the salary fixed by the Commissioner is proximate and not abnormally high and therefore sought for sustenance of the order of the Commissioner.

9. This Court is of the opinion that to insist for documentary evidence with regard to the salary of the deceased, who are workmen in a realistic sense, would not be possible. It is a matter of common knowledge that payments to the workmen are usually in cash form, at least at the time of accident as many of the workmen did not even have bank accounts. Therefore, when a claim for compensation is made, the authority is expected to make a reasonable guess work and if the amount arrived at by the Commissioner is proximate to the minimum wages fixed by the Government, the same need not be disturbed. The insistence of the counsel for the appellant that there should be documentary evidence to establish salary/wages would virtually defeat the rightful claim of compensation.

10. In this case, the fixation of salary @ Rs.3,500/- per month by the Commissioner is realistic and proximate to the minimum wages fixed by the Government. In the appeal under Section 30 of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, as long as the order of the Commissioner is pr