Compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act must adhere to statutory minimum wages, ensuring accurate wage calculations for deceased employees.

Judgment :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the insurer under Section 30 of the Employees9 Compensation Act, 1923, assailing the judgment and award dated 15.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner for Employee9s Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack in E.C. Case No.356-D of 2015.

2. Though the Appeal was listed for admission, on consent of both the sides, the same is being taken up for final hearing and disposal.

3. The factual backdrop of the case, in short, is that the predecessor in interest of the claimant family, namely one Sahadev Rout died due to an accident, which took place on 31.08.2015 near Chhend, Rourkela and eventually the said Sahadev Rout, workman succumbed to the injuries at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Since the incident has arisen out of and in course of his employment, the members of the deceased family, such as, his wife and children have filed a claim case under the provision of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. It is alleged in the claim application that while the deceased was working as a driver in Tata Ace bearing Registration No.OD- 05-3446 belonging to the respondent no.1, he met with an accident on 31.08.2015. Initially the deceased was shifted to ISPAT General Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for treatment. During his treatment, he died at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, as a result of which, an U.D. F.I.R. case was registered under the Malgodown Police Station, Cuttack, bearing U.D.F.I.R. Case No.1293 of 2015. Pursuant to such U.D. F.I.R., post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted.

5. In their claim application, the claimants have stated that the deceased was getting Rs.10,000/- per month towards his wage and that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 36 years.

6. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Cuttack after taking evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties decided the E.C. Case No.356-D of 2015 by judgment dated 15.09.2021, wherein learned trial court has allowed the claim application of the Applicants in part on contest against Respondent No.2 and directed the Present Appellant to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.12,71,206/- before that court within a period of thirty days from the date of order, failing which, the Appellant shall be liable to pay 50% penalty along with interest @12% on the awarded amount.

7. Challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the court below, the present Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal before this court. Apart from the other grounds taken in the Appeal Memo, the Appellant has taken a ground challenging the fixation of income of the deceased and the quantum of compensation determined by the Court below.

8. Heard Mr. V. Narasingh, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1. Perused the case records.

9. Mr.V.Narsingh, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the court below has committed an illegality by passing the impugned award and thereby saddling the entire liability on the Insurer of the offending vehicle. He further submits that in the absence of any documentary evidence relating to wage of the deceased, the finding arrived at by the court below in that regard are based on guess work and on surmises and conjecturers and as such the final award has been passed without following the due procedure of law.

10. It is further submitted by