Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Reliance General Insuranc Co. ... on 29 August, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010124882014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/39/2014
SMT. PUNAM DEVI and 5 ORS,
W/O LT. DAYA SANKAR SINGH
2: SHILPI KUMARI
D/O LT. DAYA SANKAR SINGH
3: LAXMINI KUMARI
D/O LT. DAYA SANKAR SINGH
4: NIVA KUMARI
D/O LT. DAYA SANKAR SINGH
5: MAJIT KUMAR
S/O LT. DAYA SANKAR SINGH
6: SUBHOD KUMAR
S/O LT. DAYA SANKAR SINGH
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF M/S PUNJ LLYOD LTD. COMPLEX CHEPTI
RANGIA
KAMRUP
ASSAM
781354. PREMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL. SURWALIYA
P.O. BARHAR GOPAL
DIST. SIWAN
BIHAR. APPLICANT NO. 2 TO 6 ARE REPRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT
NO. 1 DUE TO THEIR MINORITY
VERSUS
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANC CO. LTD. and ANR.
REGISTERED OFFICE AT RELIANCE CENTRE, 19, WALCHAND HIRACHAND
MARG, BALLARD ESTATE MUMBAI 400001 REPRESENTED BY THE POLICY
Page No.# 2/4
SERVING OFFICER 5TH FLOOR ANIL PLAZA, BESIDES IDBI BANK G.S.
ROAD, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 781005 INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-
14/A-8950
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S C PANDIT
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R GOSWAMI (R1)
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Appellants : Mr. S.C. Pandit,
Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. R. Goswami,
Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2023.
Date of Judgment : 29.08.2023.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. S.C. Pandit, learned counsel representing the appellants
as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
2. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation
Act, 1923 against the judgment and order dated 06.03.2014 passed in by
the learned Commissioner, Employee's Compensation, Kamrup,
Guwahati in W.C. Case No.61/2012.
3. Daya Sankar Singh died in a motor accident occurred during the
course of his employment under M/S. Punj Llyod Ltd. Complex. He was
Page No.# 3/4
earning a salary of ₹5,800/- per month excluding overtime wages of
approximately ₹4,200/-. The Commissioner held that overtime wages is
not included in the wage of a workman. The Commissioner notionally
held the income of the deceased to be ₹4,992/- per month.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of
both sides.
5. At this stage, Section 2(m) of the Employee's Compensation Act,
1923 is relevant. It reads as -
"(m) "wages", includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being
estimated in money, other than a travelling allowance or the value of any
travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of [an employee]
towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to [an employee] to
cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his
employment;"
6. Therefore, overtime wages is included in the wages of the workman.
7. Regarding the notional holding of the monthly wage at ₹4,992/-, we
can take the help of the Notification dated 31 st May, 2010 issued by the
Ministry of Labour and Employment. According to this Notification,
Government of India has fixed the monthly wage of a workman at
₹8,000/-. So, the monthly income of the deceased should have been
held to be ₹8,000/-.
8. Therefore, the correct calculation of the compensation would be like
this -
50% of ₹8,000/- X 181.37 = ₹7,25,480/-.
9. The claimant no.1 admitted in her evidence that she has already
Page No.# 4/4
received ₹28,000/- from the employer company. Therefore, the claimant
shall be entitled to ₹6,97,480/-. Additionally, the claimant shall be entitled
to a sum of ₹5,000/- as funeral expenses. In total, the claimant shall be
entitled to ₹7,02,480/-.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is
modified. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation
of ₹7,02,480/- to the claimant no.1 within next 3(three) months. The
aforesaid compensation shall carry an interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of this judgment.
The appeal is disposed of.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
