The main legal point established is that 'bhatta' can be considered as part of wages for the computation of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the insurance company is liable to pay interest on the compensation amount.

P.K. Jaiswal, J.

This appeal was admitted for final hearing on 19.1.2011 on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, has committed an error of law in not holding the respondent No. 2, insurance company, liable for payment of interest on the amount of compensation from the date of accident till its realization as per section 4A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?

(ii) Whether 'bhatta' has to be considered as wages for the purpose of computation of compensation and learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, has committed an error in not awarding 'bhatta'?

This appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The learned Commissioner after appreciating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, i.e., on 6.10.2005 the income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000 per month and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,39,570 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 31.1.2006.

2. In respect of income of the deceased it is submitted that deceased was working as cleaner on the truck bearing registration No. MP 13-E 0553 and during the course of employment he met with an accident in which he sustained grievous injuries. During the treatment on 10.10.2005 he died at Government Hospital. Mandsaur. At the time of death he was 18 years of age and his salary was Rs. 4,000 per month. Apart from his salary he was getting the dainik bhatta of Rs. 50 per day. Exhs. P1 to P7 are the documents in respect of wages of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Basantabai in her statement has deposed that income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000 per month, but she in her evidence has not stated that the deceased was not getting Rs. 50 per day as bhatta and submitted that the learned Commissioner wrongly disbelieved the said part of the evidence and assessed his income at Rs. 3,000 per month.

3. On the other hand, Mr. M. Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent insurance company, supported the order passed by Commissioner and submitted that bhatta is not a part of wages as defined in clause (m) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. This question was considered by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior Bench in the case of Smt. Shakuntala and Others Vs. Kanna Dangi and Others, (2007) ACJ 2486. Para 11 which is relevant reads as herein-below:

To determine the question whether the bhatta (daily allowance) is a part of wages for computing the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act and ultimately to determine the question of wages of a driver, we have to consider the evidence and if it has come in the evidence that he was also getting Rs. 50 per day as daily allowance, whether the same can form part of wages. The term 'wages' has been defined in many Central Acts, such as, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936; the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which are as under:

Payment of Wages Act, 1936:

Section 2(vi)--'wages' means all remuneration (whether by way of salary allowance, or otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment and include--

(a) xxx

(b) xxx

(c) any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment (whether called a bonus or by any other name):

(d) xxx

(e) xxx

Minimum Wages Act, 1948:

Section 2(h)--'wages' means all remuneration, capable of being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment and includes house rent allowance, but does not