ORDER:

Challenging the order dated 24.11.2009 passed in W.C.

case No.346 rf 2OO3 by the Commissioner f,rr W'orkmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad, s,:eking enhancement of the compensation, this Civil Miscellan:ous Appeal is hled by the clarmanl.-appellant.

compensation rf Rs.4,OO,OOO/-.

\

Z PSS,J CMA No.229 of 2OlO

3. After adducing evidence and marking exhibits, the Deputy Commissioner granted an amount of Rs. 1,26,181,/- towards compensation. Being not satisfied with the quarltum of compensation, the claimant/appellant preferred this Appeal.

4.

Heard arguments of both the learned counsel.

5. A perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour shows that, claimant was a cleaner with a salary of Rs.S,OOO/- per month and batta Rs.SO/- per day as on the date of accident i.e., 27.11.2OO2. In the counter filed by the 1"t respondent-owner of the vehicle, he admitted the employment of the appellant/claimant and stated that he was paying Rs.4,O00/- per month and Rs. 1O/- per day as Batta. The salary certilicate was marked as Ex.AlO. The Deputy Commissioner has taken minimum wages @ Rs. 1,900/- per month for calculation purpose. In the discussion, it is stated that in the nearby Maldals i.e. Morthad, Kammarpalli, Velpur which fall under Zone-I, the minimum wages of Rs.2,392/- per month was taken, but Bheemgal Mandal falls under Zone-llrl, as such, the minimum wages of Rs.1,9OO/- is taken for the purpose of calculation. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner has considered the wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. Further, PSS,J ,.1 C \1.\ No.229 of 2010 the appellant claimant examined PW2-Do<:tor, rvho assessed (,

as SOYo insteac of 650/o.

6. The lea'ned counsel for the appellanrt/claimant contended that the Deputy Commissioner erred n taking the minimum wage; instead of taking the wages as Rs..1i,000/- per i month as clair ned by the appellant/claimant. lle further contended that rn considering the nature of injurie si sustained, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have taker-r the ,lisability of I

accident till date of realization.

awarded compensation and thus, it needs no interferet-Lce B. The owner o'the vehicle i.e. l"t respondent u,as r,xarnined as RW. 1 and he sl atecl that he was paying salary of tls.4,OoO/- I per month and Batta of 1O/- per day to Rs. the appellant/claiman and issued Ex.AlO salar5z certifi<.ate. The Deputy Commissioner erred in not considering the sa:-ne, and CMA No.229 of"2"\0l0 \

has wrongly taken the minimum wages as Rs. 1,9O0/-. Thus, the wages of the applic ant/ appellant has to be rnodified as \

Rs.4,000/- per month.

9.

Considering the age and nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant and the disability assessed by the doctor, the Deputy Commissioner has wrongly taken into consideration the disability of the appellant (D 50% instead of 650/o for calculating the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.1,26,181/- towards compensation along with interest @12%

p.a. from one month after the date of accident. However, the appellant-claimant is entitled to interest @ l2o/o per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization in view of the decision of the Supreme Court 1n SABERABIBI YAKUBBHAI SH/.IKII V. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYI .

10. In view of above differences in the order of the Deput5r Commissioner, the compensation has to be calculated as under:

60 / 1 OOxRs.4 OOOx22 1.37 x65/ 1 O0 = Rs. 3,45,337 / -

.

1 I Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. The 2"d respondent-lnsurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount with interest accrued thereon within a period of one I zor+ scc zss

1zy ./'

5 PSS,J CI'41 No 229 of 2O 10 month from t re date of the order, and on such deposit, the applicant/appe lant is entitled to withdraw the samr:. There shall be no order as I c costs.

12. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applic,rtions, if any, shall stand clo sed.

SD/- B.S.CHIRANJEEVI .IOINT REGISTRAR {y, //TRUE COPY//

SECTICJN OFFICER To, 1. The commisi