Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Amarjit Kaur & Anr. on 18 April, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 163/2017
% 18th April, 2017
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate.
versus
AMARJIT KAUR & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. Appl. No. 14358/2017 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
FAO No. 163/2017 and C.M. Appl. No. 14359/2017 (for stay)
1. This first appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed by the Insurance Company,
respondent no. 2 before the Employees Compensation Commissioner,
challenging the judgment dated 21.2.2017 whereby the Commissioner
has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent no. 1 herein, the
widow of the deceased Sh. Saranjit Singh. The Commissioner has
awarded compensation of Rs.5,89,800/- taking the age of the deceased
as 52 years and the wage at Rs.8,000/- per month.
2. The facts of the case are that the late husband of the
respondent no. 1, Sh. Saranjit Singh was working as a cleaner on a
truck being No. HR-55S-5392, a truck owned by the respondent no. 2
herein and who was the respondent no. 1 before the Employees
Compensation Commissioner. On 20.7.2014, late Sh. Saranjit Singh
met with an accident arising out of and during the course of
employment, inasmuch as, he was travelling with the subject truck on a
business trip coming from Karnal to Pune at Maharashtra. When the
vehicle reached under the jurisdiction of Police Station Gordhan Vilas,
District Udaipur, Rajasthan, there was an accident on Udaipur Balicha
bypass at about 9:30 p.m. when the vehicle was parked at Mahadev
Hotel, Udaipur, Balicha bypass for taking evening meal because a car
being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from Udaipur side
and hit cleaner Sh. Saranjit Singh who died during his treatment in
hospital. FIR No. 310 dated 21.7.2014 was lodged. The truck owned
by respondent no. 2 herein was insured with the present appellant,
namely, M/s New India Assurance Company Limited with an
additional premium being paid to the appellant under the Employee's
Compensation Act. The validity of the subject policy was from
23.7.2013 to 22.7.2014 and therefore the accident happened within the
validity period of the policy.
3. Two aspects have been argued on behalf of the appellant
before this Court. Firstly, it is argued that the Commissioner has
wrongly taken the wages payable at Rs.8,000/- per month though in the
claim petition the respondent no. 1 admitted that the deceased was
earning only Rs.6,500/- per month plus Rs.200/- as food allowances.
The second aspect which is argued is that the age of the deceased was
57 years as stated in the post mortem report filed before the
Commissioner and thus the impugned judgment has wrongly taken the
age of the deceased as 52 years.
4. I cannot agree with any of the arguments urged on behalf
of the appellants. As regards the first argument it is noted that Section
4 of the Employee's Compensation Act was amended by inserting sub-
Section (1B) by Act 45 of 2009 with effect from 18.1.2010 whereby
the Central Government by notification in the official gazette was
entitled to notify for the purpose of calculation of compensation under
sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Employee's Compensation Act, the
monthly wages payable to an employee. The Commissioner has
therefore rightly acted under this provision by taking the figure of
minimum wages which are payable at Rs.8,000/- per month. The first
argument of the appellant is therefore rejected.
5. The second argument urged on behalf of the appellant that
the age of the deceased should be taken as 57 years, inasmuch as,
respondent no. 1 in the petition stated age of the deceased to be 35
years and the post mortem report mentions maximum age of the
deceased as 57 years is once again an argument without merit because
the Commissioner has relied upon the Election Identity Card of the
deceased showing the deceased as 31 years on 1.1.1994 and therefore
being 52 years of age at the time of the accident/death on 20.7.2014.
Weightage cannot be given to age stated in the post mortem report and
which would be on the basis of oral information supplied, and once a
civil case is to be decided on balance of probabilities, the
Commissioner has not erred in accepting the documentary evidence of
the Election Identity Card for taking the age of the deceased as 52
years. The second argument urged on behalf of the appellant is also
therefore rejected.
6. Dismissed.
APRIL 18, 2017/ AK VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
