BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. Heard Mr. K. K. Bhatta, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. I. Haque, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed by the appellant/insurance company impugning the judgment and award dated 07.02.2023, passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Kamrup in W.C. Case No. 28(A)/2020, whereby an amount of Rs. 13,63,280/- was awarded to the respondent No. 1, along with an interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the present respondent No. 1 had filed an application under Section 3 and 22 of the Employee Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Kamrup at Guwahati seeking compensation on account of the death of his son, namely, Satyajit Das, in an accident which occurred on 19.10.2019 at about 4:10 PM involving a vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-9AC-2520. The aforesaid application was registered as W.C. Case No. 28(A)/2020. The claim of the present respondent was contested by the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle as well as by the insurance company by filing separate written statements.

4. In support of his claim, the respondent No. 1 examined himself as PW-1 before the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Kamrup and exhibited certain documents. The insurance company did not adduce any evidence. However, the employer of the deceased was examined by the Court as Court Witness. Ultimately, by the impugned judgment, the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Kamrup had allowed the claim of the respondent in the manner as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs hereinabove.

5. On 10.05.2023, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after perusing the Memorandum of Appeal as well as materials available on record and after considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant formulated the following substantial question of law in this appeal:-

“Whether the learned Commissioner was justified to consider the wage of the deceased/workman at Rs. 12,000/- per month and to compute the compensation accordingly in as much as, as per the Government Notification, which was in force at the time of the accident, the statutory salary ceiling for any workman was Rs.8,000/- per month?”

6. Mr. K. K. Bhatta, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Kamrup had erred in passing the impugned judgment and award dated 07.02.2023 by taking the wage of the deceased employee at Rs. 12,000/-, per month ignoring the Notification dated 31st May, 2010 issued by the Ministry of Labour And Employment, whereby the monthly wages as referred to in Section 4(1B) was fixed @ Rs. 8,000/-, therefore, he submits that the Commissioner, Employees Compensation, Kamrup was wrong in taking the monthly wage of the deceased employee (son of the respondent No. 1) @ Rs. 12,000/- per month.

7. He further submits that while computing the monthly wage of the deceased employee, the Commissioner also erred in regarding the daily allowances which was given to the deceased employee @Rs. 100/- per day, as a part of the wages.

8. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the appellant has cited the following rulings:

i. K. Sivaraman and Others Vs. P Sathishkumar and Another reported in (2020) 1 SCC 594

ii. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Manovara Begum and Another (Judgment dated 21.08.2025 in MFA No. 13/2023 of a Coordinate Bench of this Court)

iii. Oriental