IMPORTANT POINT
The Employee’s Compensation Act allows for compensation based on the actual monthly wages of an employee without a statutory cap, reflecting the legislative intent to provide fair compensation for work-related injuries or deaths.

JUDGMENT :

MALASRI NANDI, J.

Heard Mr. AJ Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. B Baruah, learned counsel for all the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s/Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter in short EC Act) against the judgment and award dated 18.01.2019, passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, Dibrugarh in EC Case No. 2/2015.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No. 1 as claimant had filed the EC Case No. 2/2015 before the Court of the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, Dibrugarh, Assam for claiming compensation for the death of the victim Kamal Khan in a motor vehicle accident which has taken place on 15.08.2014 during the course of employment as the driver of vehicle bearing No. NL-02/D5495 (Tanker). The present appellant was impleaded in the said EC Case being insurer of the alleged tanker and contested the case by filing written statement denying its liability in the said case.

4. In support of her case, the claimant side had examined the claimant as sole witness and exhibited some documents and the opposite parties did not adduce any defence witness. On the basis of the materials on record, the learned Commissioner had passed the judgment and award directing the appellant to make payment of Rs. 10,70,520/-along with 6% interest with effect from the date of filing of the case to the respondents No. 1/claimant.

5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award as aforesaid, the appellant prefers this appeal on quantum of compensation.

6. The principal contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Trial Court had committed a grave error in considering the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs.11,00/-for the purpose of computing the compensation. He submitted that the Trial Court had failed to take into consideration, the notification issued under Section 4(1B) of the EC Act by which the Central Government had notified that a sum of Rs.8,000/-would be the monthly wages that would have to be reckoned as the maximum wages for the purpose of determining compensation under the EC Act. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that when a claim for compensation was made under the EC Act in respect of a deceased employee whose monthly wages exceeded Rs.8,000/-, then, notwithstanding the actual wages of the employee and even if it was in excess of Rs. 8,000/-, for the purpose of determining compensation under the EC Act, the Courts have to consider the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs. 8,000/-only. He also submitted that since the Trial Court, under the impugned order, had taken into consideration the actual monthly wages of the deceased employee, which was in excess of Rs.8,000/-, for the purpose of determining the compensation and this had resulted in an award, which was in excess of the maximum prescribed, it could not be sustained.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the award of the Trial Court was lawful and proper and there was no illegality in the judgment passed by the Trial Court. He submitted that intent of the statute, which is a piece of a social welfare legislation, is clear and it is to ensure that a just compensation be paid to an employee. He further submitted that the statute has now not stipulated an outer limit to the compensation payable and it had only prescribed a minimum compensation payable to the dependents of a deceased.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents has also argued that the statutory scheme was that 50% of the actual monthly wages had to be taken as the criteria for determining compensation and this was because the law makers acknowledged the fact that an employee would spend about 50% of his wages on himself and the remaining 50% of the wages would be earmarked for his dependents. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that this 50% of the monthly wages, when multiplied