IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI

rd

ON THE 3 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 268 of 2014 INDIRABAI AND 4 OTHERS Versus BHAGWANSINGH AND ANR.

Appearance:

Shri J.M. Poonegar, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Bhashkar Agrawal, advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Pradip Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

ORDER The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act being aggrieved by the award dated 21.03.2013 passed in claim case No.17/W.C.Act/2012/fatal. The challenge is to quantum of compensation.

2. The appellant has filed an application (I.A. No.2737/2015) for dispensing with the service of notice on respondent No.1 in view of the fact that the liability of insurance company is not under dispute, the aforesaid application is allowed, hence, the present appeal is heard in absence of respondent No.1 as the liability is on the insurance company.

3. The short facts of the case are that the deceased Anil Jaiswal was in employment of respondent No.1 as a driver of Truck No.MH18-M-5751. On 27.01.2011 he was going on the said truck in the course of his employment along with another driver- Mukesh and cleaner -Vicky from Indore to Karnataka. The vehicle was being driven by Anil. At around 11.30 in the night when they reached near Talegaon Chaakad Road when they were giving side to another vehicle their truck got turned into a Naalaa because of which driver Anil and cleaner Vicky died.

4. The present appellants filed application under Section 10 of the Workman Compensation Act before the labour court claiming compensation for the death of Anil. The labour court after considering the evidence which was brought on record concluded that the death occurred during the course of employment by holding that Anil was an employee of respondent No.1 and consequently, compensation to the tune of Rs.4,07,476/- along with an interest @ 12% per annum was directed to be paid with a further stipulation of penalty at 25% of the awarded amount in case of nonpayment of compensation within the stipulated period.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claims tribunal has erred in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.4425/- per month. He points out that the date of accident is 27.01.2011. The appellants claimed before the learned labour court that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month which remained undisputed. He points out that in the year 2010, the State Government enhanced the amount of compensation in the quotient for grant of compensation under the Employee Compensation Act upto Rs.8000/-. Considering the same there was no occasion before the learned labour court to reduce the claim of wages received by the appellant to Rs.4425/-. He thus prays for change in the amount of wages of the deceased and consequential enhancement in the compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the claims tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the deceased and consequently, the amount of compensation is just and proper. He submits that minimum wages have been taken into consideration, thus, the amount of Rs.4425/- per month as wages for the deceased is correct. He further points out that the insurance company has duly deposited the amount of compensation as per the impugned award. Hence, this stipulation of penalty at 25% in case of enhancement of compensation will prejudice to the interest of insurance company.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. On perusal of the pleadings as well as the evidence which has been recorded by the labour court, this Court is of the view that following substantial question of law involved in the present case.

"(i) Whether the wages of the deceased assessed @

Rs.4425/- was just and proper in view of the fact that not only the claim was of Rs.5000/- per month and also the quotient was enhanced upto Rs.8000/- vide notification d