Jharkhand High Court
Akhtari Khatoon vs Sri Twinderjeet Singh Gujral on 4 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 513 of 2016
1. Akhtari Khatoon, Widow of Late Kaisar Khan
2. Kamil Raza Khan
3. Nayab Nargis
4. Kaukashan
Appellant No. 2, 3 & 4 are minor son & daughters of late Kaisar Khan
through their mother appellant no. 1
5. Quaiyn KhanS/o Bhikasi Khan
6. Hamida Khatoon W/o Quaiyn Khan
Appellant No. 1-7, all resident of Jai Nagar, P.O & P.S. Jai Nagar District
Koderma. .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. Sri Twinderjeet Singh Gujral, S/o Late Gurubaksh Singh Gujral R/o 133
Narang Colony "A " Block, janak Puri, P.O. & P.S. Janakpuri, New Delhi
110058
2. National Insurance Company Ltd., 8, India Exchange Place Ground Floor,
Kolkata through Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd
Ranchi Patna Road, P.S. & P.S. Hazaribagh, 825301, Jharkhand (Insurer
of Truck No. BR-1 GA-0146)
... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
------
Order No. 17 / Dated : 04.02.2025.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. Claimants/appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased, who died during
course of his employment and has been awarded a compensation of
Rs.4,60,518/- along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of
petition till its deposit by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Hazaribag cum Workmen Compensation Commission, in W.C. Case No.
38 of 2012 under Section 4 of the Employment Insurance Act, 1983.
2. Deceased was driving the bus at the time of accident. The facts are not in
dispute that deceased (Kaisar Khan) aged about 30 years was a driver of
the volvo truck no. Br-1 GA 146 and died in the accident when dashed with
another truck.
3. This appeal is admitted on 17.09.2018 to be heard on the following
substantial question of law: -
I) Whether the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation has
erred in law in computing the compensation by assessing the monthly
income of the workmen at the rate of Rs. 4732/- on the basis of daily
minimum wages of truck driver fixed at Rs.182/-, as per the notification
of the Government, despite the admission of the employer (respondent
no.1) that the deceased was being paid Rs.9,500/- along with Rs. 100/-
as daily food allowance?
II) Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled to the compensation for
the future prospect on the death of deceased employee?
4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants that as per
the written statement submitted by the owner of the vehicle/ O.P. No. 1, in
which he was getting monthly salary of 9,500/- along with daily food
allowance of Rs. 100/-. However, the learned Labour Court-cum-Workmen
Compensation Commissioner awarded the compensation by taking as
Rs.182/- per day as the minimum wages and computed as Rs. 4732/- as
monthly income.
5. With respect to future prospects, it is argued that the spirit behind awarding
compensation is that it should be just compensation which has been held
in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. 2017
16 SCC 680 held as under:-
"10. The discussion on the point in Pranay Sethi was from the standpoint of
arriving at "just compensation" in terms of Section 108 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
11. If an indicia is made available in the form of a statutory instrument which
affords a favourable treatment, the decision in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken
to have limited the operation of such statutory provision specially when the
validity of the Rules was not put under any challenge. The prescription of
15% in cases where the deceased was in the age bracket of 50-60 years as
stated in Pranay Sethi cannot be taken as maxims. In the absence of any
governing principle available in the statutory regime, it was only the form of
an indication. If a statutory instrument has devised a formula which affords
better or greater benefit, such statutory instrument must be allowed to
operate unless the statutory instrument is otherwise found to be invalid.
(emphasis supplied).
6. It is argued that considering the ratio laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court as well as by Allahabad High Court in New India Assurance
Company Limited Vs. Sri Yamini & three Ors (First Appeal from Order
No.2367 of 2013) appellants are entitled to compensation for loss of
earning under the head of future prospect.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent- Insurance Company has defended
the impugned judgment/ Award.
8. It is argued that learned Trial Court in Para-8 has assigned specific reasons
as to why claim of monthly income as salary of Rs. 9,500/- was not
accepted by the learned court below. Therefore, the minimum wage for
truck driver notified by Government was taken into consideration for
computing the compensation amount as per the Schedule-IV of the
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
9. With regard to the future prospect, it is submitted that the claimant had an
option either to file claim case under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The claimants elected to file the case
under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 in which there is no provision
for award of compensation under the heading of future prospect.
10. I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent
Insurance Company, that specific statutory schemes have been enacted
to compensate the victims of accidental death or injuries either during the
course of employment or under the provisions of Employees
Compensation Act,1923 and under Motor Vehicle Act,1988. Claimants
have an option to move for compensation under either of the statutory
scheme which has been conceived with altogether different methodology
to compute compensation depending on the fact and situation. To hold
otherwise, will amount to doing violence with the object, intendment of
these Acts. Admittedly, the compensation is computed under Employees
Compensation Act, as per Schedule IV of Section 4, whereas the
compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is computed on the basis of
multiplier system as decided in Pranay Sethi case (supra).
11. As far as the Authority (s) relied upon by the counsel on behalf of the
appellant is concerned, I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of
the Respondent-Insurance Company, that under the Uttar Pradesh Motor
Vehicle Rules,1988, there is specific rule, framed which was considered
for an award of compensation including the heading for future prospects.
There is no such rule as framed in Jharkhand to award compensation
under the heading of future prospect.
12. There is merit in the case for enhancement of compensation, considering
the fact that it has not been denied in the show cause filed on behalf of by
the owner of the vehicle (respondent no.1) that the deceased was driving
the said vehicle at the relevant time of accident on monthly salary which
was of Rs.9500/-. A.W. 1, A.W. 2 and A.W. 3 have consistently stated that
the deceased was earning Rs.9500/- per month at the time of accident and
no contrary evidence has been led on behalf of Insurance Company.
Taking the nature of occupation and the year of accident, claim of
Rs.9500/- per month does not appear to be exaggerated. Learned Court
below was in error to have computed the compensation amount by taking
the minimum wage of the deceased and rejecting Rs.9500/- as the monthly
income.
13. Taking Rs.9500/- as the monthly income, the final compensation amount
as per Schedule IV to Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, shall
be Rs.9500/2 multiplied by admissible factor of 194.64 which will be as
Rs.9,24,540/-.
14. The Insurer of the vehicle (respondent no.2) is directed to pay the
compensation amount of Rs.9,24,540/- along with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of accident to the claimants. However, 50% of the
compensation amount shall go to the widow of the deceased (claimant
no.1) and rest 50% will be received by the other claimants in equal share
by appellant nos.2 to 6.
Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. I.A. if any, is disposed
of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/Pawan/-
