THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.806 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants challenging the Award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad, in W.C. No.186 of 2005, dated 02.07.2007.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this Appeal are that one Sri K. Krishna Reddy was working as a labourer on bore well rig mounted vehicle bearing No.AP29A-6780 and was working with opposite party No.1 for about a year prior to the date of accident. The accident occurred on 16.08.2005 on which day, while preparing the vehicle to dig bore well at Lokajapalli Road, Darsi Village of Prakasam District, the iron master of the vehicle touched a live electric line due to which, the deceased got electrocuted and died on the spot.
3. The dependents of the deceased i.e., parents and sister of the deceased filed the WC No.186 of 2005 before the Workmen's Compensation Court claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite parties. The learned Commissioner held that both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the dependents of the deceased. As regards the wages received by the labourer, which was claimed to be at Rs.4,000/- per 2 month by the claimants and at Rs.3,500/- as confirmed by the opposite party No.1, the learned Commissioner considered the minimum wages of Rs.2,429/- as per the Minimum Wages Act as wages receivable by the deceased and awarded the compensation accordingly. Against this adoption of wages at Rs.2,429/- instead of Rs.4,000/- per month as claimed by the dependents of the deceased, the appellants/claimants have filed this appeal.
4. Heard Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants, Sri Ch. Lakshmi Kumari, learned counsel for the first respondent/owner of the vehicle and Sri K.S.N. Murthy, learned counsel for the second respondent/insurance company. Perused the material placed on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the employment of the deceased with opposite party No.1 was confirmed by opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 has also confirmed that he was paying Rs.3,500/- per month to the deceased, whereas the claimants have claimed that the deceased was receiving Rs.4,000/- per month. He further submits that there was no rebuttal of this evidence by the insurance company and that the Minimum Wages Act only prescribes the minimum wages to be paid to the labourer, but does not fix any maximum wages. Therefore, according to him, the learned Commissioner ought not to have discredited the evidence of opposite party No.1 and should not have 3 considered only the minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act to award the compensation.
6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Lalman Soni Vs. Rupinder Singh Gil [2012 Law Suit (MP) 1804] wherein in similar circumstances, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the learned Commissioner therein has erred in passing the impugned order on lesser side ignoring the material admission made in the pleadings of owner of the vehicle.
7. Having regard to the material on record, this Court is of the view that the claim of the claimants that the deceased labourer was receiving more than Rs.3,500/- per month as wages for working on the vehicle of opposite party No.1, as confirmed by him, is not disproved. The wages may vary depending upon the nature of work being done by the labourer. Working on a bore well rig is undoubtedly laborious and therefore, the wages could be more as compared to other labour work. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has committed an error in considering the wages of the deceased, as per the Minimum Wages Act only in place of actual wages received by the labourer. The insurance company is, therefore, directed to pay the compensation to the claimants by adopting the wages @ Rs.3,500/- per month.
4
8. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 12.11.2021 Isn