Order on Board

03/11 /2023

1. This appeal is listed today for admission. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is finally heard. Since all the parties are representing in the appeal through their respective counsel, no fresh notice is required to be issued for final hearing.

2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act, 1923”) has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 14.11.2017 passed by learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Surguja (C.G.) in Case No. 04/W.C. Act/2014 (Fatal) by which the learned Commissioner has partly allowed the claim of the claimants by calculating the wages of the deceased employee @

Rs. 4000/- granting less compensation.

3. This appeal is admitted on the following questions of law:-

“(1) Whether the learned Commissioner for Employees' Compensation Act-cum- Labour Court was justified in treating wages of the deceased Rs. 2000/- per month ignoring the amendment made in Section 4(1)a of the Act, 1923 on 18.01.2010?

(2) Whether the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation-cum-Labour Court was justified in not granting interest to the claimant after one month from the date of accident ignoring the provisions of Section 4A(3)

of the Act, 1923?”

4. The brief facts as reflected from records are that the claimants have filed an application under Section 22 under the Act, 1923 before the learned Commissioner for Employees' Compensation Act-cum- Labour Court mainly contending that the deceased was the driver of Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. C.G.15 B 3540 and was getting wages @ Rs. 4000/- per month with allowances. The said vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2/Insurance Company. On 08.04.2012, the deceased was driving the said vehicle and going from Sonatarai to village Dumardih and at about 9.30 pm., the tie-rod of the vehicle cracked causing seizure of the stairing, thus the vehicle became out of control and dashed with tree. Due to sudden dash, the deceased sustained grievous injury and he succumbed to death. It has been further contended that the deceased was aged about 30 years, he had valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and since the employer has not paid compensation, therefore, they preferred an application under Section 10 of the Act, 1923 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,98,800/- along with interest and penalty as the employer has neither paid compensation nor deposited with the Commissioner within 30 days from the date of accident, as such, he is liable for interest and penalty.

5. Respondent No. 1 has filed written statement denying the fact that the deceased was employed by him on the salary of Rs. 4000/- per month. It has been admitted that the deceased succumbed to death on account of accident only and would pray for rejection of the application.

6. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company has filed written statement denying the allegation made in the application specifically stating that the deceased succumbed to death by the vehicle owned by the employer, therefore, the Insurance Company is not responsible for payment of compensation. It has been contended that the driver was neither having valid driving licence nor he is an employee of respondent No. 1, there is breach of policy of insurance and would pray for rejection of the claim application.

7. The learned Commissioner on pleadings of both parties, has framed as many as 8 issues. To substantiate the submission, the claimants exhibited documents namely FIR (Ex. P/1 & P/2), application for medical examination (Ex.P/3), crime detail form (Ex. P/4), property seizure memo (Ex. P/5 & P/6), merg intimation (Ex. P/7), naksha panchayatnama (Ex. P/8), application for post-mortem (Ex. P/9), post-mortem report (Ex.P/10), examination of vehicle (Ex. P/11) & vehicle supurdnama (Ex. P/12).

8. The respondent examined Valas Kumar Markam who has stated that the deceased was employed with respondent No. 1 and was getting salary @ Rs. 400