The central legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of the deceased's monthly wages in accordance with the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act and relevant case law.

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

1. This appeal is filed by appellant Insurance Company against the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act, Patiala (in short the Commissioner).

2. The brief facts of the case of the Claimants-Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are that their son Monu Singh @ Baljinder Singh was aged about 20 years and he was working as a Helper/Cleaner on a truck-container No.HR-55M-7693 which was owned by respondent No.3-Gurdev Singh and was insured with appellant-Insurance Company. On 26.06.2013 Monu Singh went along with the said truck to Muradabad and after unloading the goods, he had gone to Gandhi Nagar along with the said truck as a Helper/Cleaner and the said truck met with an accident on 26.06.2013 and at that time the truck was driven by Sham Singh and due to the aforesaid accident Monu Singh sustained multiple injuries and was taken to hospital where he was declared dead. FIR No.1-89/2013 dated 26.06.2013 was recorded in the concerned Police Station with regard to the aforesaid accident. That the deceased used to earn more than Rs.10,000/- per month as his monthly salary as a Cleaner on a truck was Rs.4,000/- and he also used to earn another Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month by doing work of loading-unloading of the goods from the said truck.

3. On notice respondent No.3-Gurdev Singh appeared in the Court of Commissioner and filed written statement wherein he admitted the relationship of employer and employee between him and the deceased and he also admitted that the deceased met with an accident during the course of employment and he also admitted the fact regarding ownership of the truck in question. However while praying for dismissal of the claim application, respondent No.3 pleaded that the monthly wages of Monu Singh were Rs.3,000/-.

4. The claim application was also contested by appellant Insurance Company on the ground that the same is not maintainable. The relationship of employer and employee between Gurdev Singh and the deceased was also denied and it was further pleaded that the Court at Patiala is having no jurisdiction to entertain the compensation application. The other averments of the claim application were also denied.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Commissioner, for disposal of the claim application:-

1. Whether deceased Monu Singh @ Baljinder Singh met with an accident causing his death during and in course of his employment with the respondent ? OPA

2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as claimed? if yes, with what details ? OPA

3. Relief, if any.

6. The counsel for the claimants examined claimant No.1 Sumitra Devi as PW-1 and she produced copy of FIR dated 26.06.2013 Ex. P-1 and its hindi transcription Ex. P-1/A, attested copy of Panchnama Ex. P-2, post mortem report of deceased Ex. P-3, Death certificate of deceased Ex. P-4, copy of Insurance Police Ex. P-5, copy of Registration Certificate of truck No.HR-55M-7693 (Annexure P-6) and copy of driving licence of Sham Singh Ex. P-7.

7. On the other hand, the respondents i.e. employer and Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence in support of their defence and finally their evidence was closed by order, by the Commissioner.

8. After hearing counsel for the parties, the Commissioner decided issues No.1 & 2 in favour of the claimants-respondents No.1 & 2 and held that there was relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.3-Gurdev Singh and the deceased and that total salary of the deceased was Rs.8,000/- per month and the age of the deceased was taken as 19 years on the basis of the post mortem report Ex. P-3. The total amount of compensation was calculated as per the schedule IV and multiplier of 225.22 was applied and accordingly the total compensation was assessed as Rs.9,00,880/- (Rs.8,000 X 50% X 225.22) by the Commissioner while passing the impugned award. The employer and the Insurance company were held jointly and severally liable to pay