In computing compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the Commissioner can assess monthly wages based on prevailing wage structure using contemporaneous governmental rates, not rigidly bound by outdated statutory ceiling, and interest must run from accident date, not conditionally.

Judgment on Board

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

1. Since both the appeals arising out of same judgment passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act and involves similar facts, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment.

2. The appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, i.e., MAC No. 1368/2019 filed by the claimants and MAC No. 1308/2019 filed by the Insurance Company, arise out of the judgment dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation (Labour Court), Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Case No. 01/2018/E.C. Act/Fatal. The claimants have preferred the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation along with grant of statutory interest and penalty, whereas the Insurance Company has filed the appeal seeking setting aside of the impugned award.

3. (a) MAC No. 1368/2019 was admitted by this Court on 08.09.2023 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the learned Commissioner committed an error of law in awarding conditional interest contrary to the provisions contained in clause (a) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 4-A of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923?”

(b) MAC No. 1308/2019 was admitted by this Court on 19.07.2019 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether finding of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Jagdalpur assessing the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs.9,880/-, instead of Rs.8,000/-, by ignoring the Notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers enumerated under sub-section (1B) of Section 4 (1) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and thereby awarded total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.9,49,171.6/-, is perverse?”

FACTS OF THE CASE:

4. (A) The applicants/claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of Satyendra Singh (since deceased) filed a claim application stating that the deceased was employed as a driver on the truck bearing Registration No. CG-17 H 1444 owned by Non-applicant No. 1. On 15.12.2017, while the deceased was driving the said truck loaded with iron grit from Jagdalpur to Raipur and proceeding cautiously on the left side of the road, another truck bearing Registration No. CG-04 J 6005, driven rashly and negligently from the opposite direction, collided with the vehicle of the deceased near Village Dahikonga. As a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous and fatal injuries and died on the spot.

(B) It was further stated that at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 37 years and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.9,60,700/-. On the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was validly insured with Non-applicant No. 2.

(C) Non-applicant No. 1, in his written statement before the learned Commissioner, admitted that the deceased was employed as a driver on his truck bearing Registration No. CG-17 H 1444 and was being paid a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. It was further contended that since the said vehicle was validly insured with Non-applicant No. 2, the liability to pay compensation rests upon Non-applicant No. 2.

(D) The Insurance Company, in its written statement, denied the averments made by the claimants and contended that the deceased was not employed under Non-applicant No. 1. It was further pleaded that the driver (deceased) did not possess a valid and effective driving license and that t