The court established that actual monthly income must be prioritized over fixed government notifications for compensation purposes, emphasizing the need for reasonable and just assessments in workmen’s compensation cases.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.

1. Subject-Matter:

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06.05.2024, delivered by the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation @ learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in W.C.F.A. No.37 of 2019, the original respondent no.2/Insurance Company has preferred this First Appeal.

On the other hand, feeling dissatisfied with the quantum granted by the judgment and award (supra), the claimants have preferred Cross Objection in the First Appeal. Hence, both the matters are heard together and are being disposed of vide present judgment and order by consent of Ld.

Counsel for the parties For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion in the nomenclature, the parties are referred to by their ‘factual status’.

2. Core issues:

The core issue in these cases are:

(i) Whether the Ld. Commissioner ought to have confined income of the deceased to the Fixed Monthly Wages as notified by the Central Govt. in 2010 i.e. Rs. 8,000/- p.m.?

If the answer to above is “No” what formula or mechanism can be applied if the deceased's income could not be proved by any documentary evidence or otherwise?

(ii) Whether the provision under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 mandates a fixed penalty @ “50% of the amount of compensation” or whether the Ld. Commissioner can use discretion to fix the quantum of penalty?

3. Facts In Brief:

(i) One Samsuddin Islamoddin Ansari happened to be driver of truck bearing registration no.MP-20-HB-5499. It was contended in the claim petition that while driving the said truck on Takli to Nizamoddin road in the Shivar Takli Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad, at about 11:00 a.m., of 10.03.2019, the accident took place.

It was contended that while the said Samsuddin Islamoddin Ansari climbed up on truck’s top together with Cleaner namely Brijbihari Rajendra Lodi to tighten the ropes, Samsuddin slipped from the top and fell down on the ground. Unfortunately at the same time due to some technical fault the truck turned neutral and rolled back.

It is further contended that Samsuddin was pressed under the truck’s wheels, resulting in fatal injuries.

(ii) The claimants i.e. present respondent nos.1 to 5 lodged claim under Section 4 read with Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1923) against the appellant and the respondent no.6 for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to be recovered jointly and severally from them. During pendency of the claim, the truck owner namely Shaikh Gaffar died and the Respondent Nos. 6-a to 6-f (as per First appeal title clause) came to be impleaded as his legal representatives.

(iii) Considering the case put up by the claimants, the defence raised by the original respondents and the evidence that was on record the Ld. Commissioner for Employees Compensation vide impugned judgment and award adjudicated the claim. Ld. Commissioner directed the appellant and truck owner to pay compensation of Rs.12,23,100/- to the claimants with interest @12% per annum with effect from 10.03.2019. The truck owner was also saddled with a penalty amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act of 1923 with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 06.06.2024.

Thus, the parties are before this court with their respective cases.

4. Upon hearing both the parties, this Court vide its order dated 03.04.2025, framed following substantial questions of law and posted the matter for final hearing:

(I) Whether learned Commissioner is justified in holding that the accident in question occurred due to involvement of insured vehicle with appellant, when accident is reported after seven days and FIR has been belatedly registered?

(II) Wheth