IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 513 of 2016

1. Akhtari Khatoon, Widow of Late Kaisar Khan

2. Kamil Raza Khan

3. Nayab Nargis

4. Kaukashan Appellant No. 2, 3 & 4 are minor son & daughters of late Kaisar Khan through their mother appellant no. 1

5. Quaiyn KhanS/o Bhikasi Khan

6. Hamida Khatoon W/o Quaiyn Khan Appellant No. 1-7, all resident of Jai Nagar, P.O & P.S. Jai Nagar District Koderma. .... .... Appellants Versus

1. Sri Twinderjeet Singh Gujral, S/o Late Gurubaksh Singh Gujral R/o 133 Narang Colony “A “ Block, janak Puri, P.O. & P.S. Janakpuri, New Delhi

110058

2. National Insurance Company Ltd., 8, India Exchange Place Ground Floor, Kolkata through Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd Ranchi Patna Road, P.S. & P.S. Hazaribagh, 825301, Jharkhand (Insurer of Truck No. BR-1 GA-0146)

… …. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellants : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate ------

Order No. 17 / Dated : 04.02.2025.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. Claimants/appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased, who died during course of his employment and has been awarded a compensation of Rs.4,60,518/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its deposit by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hazaribag cum Workmen Compensation Commission, in W.C. Case No.

38 of 2012 under Section 4 of the Employment Insurance Act, 1983.

2. Deceased was driving the bus at the time of accident. The facts are not in dispute that deceased (Kaisar Khan) aged about 30 years was a driver of the volvo truck no. Br-1 GA 146 and died in the accident when dashed with another truck.

3. This appeal is admitted on 17.09.2018 to be heard on the following substantial question of law: -

I) Whether the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation has erred in law in computing the compensation by assessing the monthly income of the workmen at the rate of Rs. 4732/- on the basis of daily minimum wages of truck driver fixed at Rs.182/-, as per the notification of the Government, despite the admission of the employer (respondent no.1) that the deceased was being paid Rs.9,500/- along with Rs. 100/-

as daily food allowance?

II) Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to the compensation for the future prospect on the death of deceased employee?

4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that as per the written statement submitted by the owner of the vehicle/ O.P. No. 1, in which he was getting monthly salary of 9,500/- along with daily food allowance of Rs. 100/-. However, the learned Labour Court-cum-Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded the compensation by taking as Rs.182/- per day as the minimum wages and computed as Rs. 4732/- as monthly income.

5. With respect to future prospects, it is argued that the spirit behind awarding compensation is that it should be just compensation which has been held

2017 in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.

16 SCC 680 held as under:-

“10. The discussion on the point in Pranay Sethi was from the standpoint of arriving at “just compensation” in terms of Section 108 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

11. If an indicia is made available in the form of a statutory instrument which affords a favourable treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken to have limited the operation of such statutory provision specially when the validity of the Rules was not put under any challenge. The prescription of 15% in cases where the deceased was in the age bracket of 50-60 years as stated in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken as maxims. In the absence of any governing principle available in the statutory regime, it was only the form of an indication. If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to operate unless the sta