The determination of a deceased worker's monthly income for compensation should be based on corroborative evidence or, in the absence of such evidence, on prescribed minimum wages for relevant labor categories.

D. M. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) ORIENTAL Insurance co. Ltd. being aggrieved by the award of rs. 1,68,000 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for the death of one Sanjib Das has approached this court in appeal.

( 2 ) THE legal heirs of deceased Sanjib das filed the claim case before the Commissioner claiming that deceased Sanjib das was working as a helper under the opposite party No. 1 in his truck bearing registration No. OR-01-2492 which met with an accident on 18. 2. 1996 at 2. 30 p. m. resulting in death of the deceased. With regard to the monthly income of the deceased, it was claimed as Rs. 1,500. In the objection to the said claim petition, opposite party No. 1, the owner of the vehicle, admitted the income of the deceased helper as claimed; whereas opposite party No. 2, the insurance company, resisted the claim on various grounds and denied that the deceased was earning Rs. 1,500 per month. The insurance of the vehicle in question was admitted.

( 3 ) THE Commissioner framed the following issues: (1) Whether the deceased was a workman as defined under the provisions of workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? (2) Did the accident take place arising out of and in course of employment of the deceased? (3) What was the wages and age of the deceased at the time of accident? (4) To what compensation, if any, the applicants are entitled and by whom payable?

( 4 ) MR. A. K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the insurance company, arguing as to the substantial questions of law, submitted that the amount of income of the deceased as Rs. 1,500 per month has been fixed by the Commissioner without any evidence on record and because of this error there has been inflated award in favour of the claimants and the same should be set aside because of this infirmity.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the claimants on the other hand submitted that now-a-days a skilled labourer does not get wages less than Rs. 50 a day and, therefore, the award should not be interfered with.

( 6 ) I have gone through the judgment of the learned Commissioner. The finding of learned Commissioner that the deceased was a helper in the truck in question cannot be disturbed since it is based on correct appreciation of the case. The same way, the finding that the deceased died during and in course of his employment cannot be disturbed being rightly held so by the learned Commissioner.

( 7 ) SO far as the submission of Mr. Mohanty that the monthly income of the deceased should not have been fixed at rs. 1,500 is concerned, on going through the finding of the learned,commissioner under issue No. 3, I find that though the learned Commissioner has mentioned that there is no documentary evidence with regard to the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1,500, yet he has found so on the basis of the admission of the owner of the vehicle, opposite party No. 1. In my view, such a finding needed some corroborative evidence on record. Admittedly, there is no corroborative evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the learned Commissioner to fix the monthly income of the deceased on the basis of the minimum wages for unskilled labourers as prescribed by the Government. It is submitted at the Bar that minimum wage per day as fixed by the Government is Rs. 30. However, considering the number of dependants of the deceased and further that the deceased was aged twenty years, I feel it proper that the monthly income of the deceased should be fixed at rs. 1,000. The total amount of compensation is, therefore, reduced to Rs. 1,20,000 taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1,000 and this works out a little more than Rs. 35 per day.

( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the above extent. The insurance company is liable to pay Rs. 1,20,000 as compensation to the claimants. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty that the entire amount as awarded by the learned Commissioner is in deposit before this court. The