Back
2026 Supreme(Chh) 147
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, J.
Meera Devi W/o Late Satyendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Bankelal Yadav S/o Late Haribanch Yadav – Respondents
MAC No. 1368 of 2019 & MAC No. 1308 of 2019
Decided On : 30-04-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Employees Compensation
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Social welfare legislation - Interpretation - Beneficial legislation interpreted liberally; strict technical rules cannot override substantive justice. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Claimants, dependents of deceased driver Satyendra Singh who died in truck accident on 15.12.2017, claimed compensation from employer and insurer. Employer admitted employment and monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. Commissioner determined monthly wages at Rs.9,880/- using Collector rates for skilled worker, awarded compensation with conditional interest.
Findings of Court:
Insurance company's appeal dismissed; compensation award upheld. Claimants' appeal partly allowed; conditional interest set aside, interest directed from date of accident at 12% p.a.
Issues: Whether Commissioner erred in assessing monthly wages at Rs.9,880/- instead of statutory ceiling of Rs.8,000/-; whether conditional interest award is legal.
Ratio Decidendi: In beneficial social welfare legislation, assessment of wages based on contemporaneous prevailing wage structure using governmental material (Collector rates) is not perverse. Interest under Section 4A(3) runs from date compensation fell due, i.e., date of accident; cannot be made conditional.
Result: MAC No. 1308/2019 dismissed; MAC No. 1368/2019 allowed in part - conditional interest set aside, interest @12% from accident date.
For Appellant in MAC No. 1368/2019 and Respondent in MAC No. 1308/2019:Shri Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate
For Appellant in 1308/2019 and respondent in MAC No. 1368:Shri Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate
Respondent No. 1 in MAC No. 1368/2019 and Respondent No. 5 in MAC No. 1308/2019: None though served.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common judgment for two appeals arising from same ec act compensation award. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. parties' arguments on wage assessment and interest. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. wage assessment based on prevailing rates not perverse under beneficial legislation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. interest under section 4a(3) runs from accident date, cannot be conditional. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. disposal: insurance appeal dismissed; claimants appeal partly allowed with interest modification. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
Judgment on Board
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
1. Since both the appeals arising out of same judgment passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act and involves similar facts, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment.
2. The appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, i.e., MAC No. 1368/2019 filed by the claimants and MAC No. 1308/2019 filed by the Insurance Company, arise out of the judgment dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation (Labour Court), Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Case No. 01/2018/E.C. Act/Fatal. The claimants have preferred the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation along with grant of statutory interest and penalty, whereas the Insurance Company has filed the appeal seeking setting aside of the impugned award.
3. (a) MAC No. 1368/2019 was admitted by this Court on 08.09.2023 on the following substantial question of law:
“Whether the learned Commissioner committed an error of law in awarding conditional interest contrary to the provisions contained in clause (a) of Sub-Section 3 of Section 4-A of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923?”
(b) MAC No. 1308/2019 was admitted by this Court on 19.07.2019 on the following substantial question of law:
“Whether finding of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation Act, Labour Court, Jagdalpur assessing the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs.9,880/-, instead of Rs.8,000/-, by ignoring the Notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers enumerated under sub-section (1B) of Section 4 (1) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and thereby awarded total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.9,49,171.6/-, is perverse?”
FACTS OF THE CASE:
4. (A) The applicants/claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of Satyendra Singh (since deceased) filed a claim application stating that the deceased was employed as a driver on the truck bearing Registration No. CG-17 H 1444 owned by Non-applicant No. 1. On 15.12.2017, while the deceased was driving the said truck loaded with iron grit from Jagdalpur to Raipur and proceeding cautiously on the left side of the road, another truck bearing Registration No. CG-04 J 6005, driven rashly and negligently from the opposite direction, collided with the vehicle of the deceased near Village Dahikonga. As a result of the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous and fatal injuries and died on the spot.
(B) It was further stated that at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 37 years and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.9,60,700/-. On the date of the accident, the offending vehicle was validly insured with Non-applicant No. 2.
(C) Non-applicant No. 1, in his written statement before the learned Commissioner, admitted that the deceased was employed as a driver on his truck bearing Registration No. CG-17 H 1444 and was being paid a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. It was further contended that since the said vehicle was validly insured with Non-applicant No. 2, the liability to pay compensation rests upon Non-applicant No. 2.
(D) The Insurance Company, in its written statement, denied the averments made by the claimants and contended that the deceased was not employed under Non-applicant No. 1. It was further pleaded that the driver (deceased) did not possess a valid and effective driving license and that t
