Madras High Court
M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance ... vs Tmt. Meenatchi on 10 January, 2025
C.M.A.No.2360 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2360 of 2022
and
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.18419 of 2022
M/s.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited,
Subramanian Building,
2nd Floor, Club House Road,
Chennai – 600 002. ... Appellant / Opp. Party
Vs.
1.Tmt. Meenatchi
2.Thiru. Sakthivel ... Respondents / Petitioners
3.Tmt.K.Chitra ... Respondent / Opp. Party
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the Order dated 16.05.2022 in
E.C.No.166 of 2019 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees
Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai.
For Appellants : Ms.C.Harini
For M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates
For Respondents : Mr. A. G. F. Terry Chella Raja
For Ms.M.Malar
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 03:46:34 pm )
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance
Company challenging the Award, dated 16.05.2022 passed by the learned
Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II, Chennai in E.C.No.166 of 2019 on
the file of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation / Deputy
Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, wherein the Insurance Company is
directed to pay compensation to the claimant.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred herein
according to their litigative status and rank before the Trial Court.
3. The facts leading to filing of this appeal is as follows:
The respondents 1 and 2 herein who are the claimants have filed
Claim Petition, seeking compensation for the death of their son, namely
Srinivasan @ Seenivasan during the course of employment. He was
employed under the first respondent as a driver. On 23.06.2018 at about 2.30
a.m., while he was transporting salt load from Tuticorin to Hyderabad, met
with an accident on the Sayalkudi – Sivagangai Main Road, near
Thirukostiyur NH-226 Bye-pass Road Junction. In the accident, the
claimant’s son sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. In this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 03:46:34 pm )
regard, a criminal case was also registered in F.I.R.No.47/2018 under
Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC and the claimants have claimed
compensation by invoking Section 22(1) of the Employees Compensation
Act, 1926.
4. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle was remained ex-
parte before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai. However, the
second respondent – Insurance Company disputed the relationship between
the employee - employer as well as the quantum of compensation claimed.
5. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, after conducted detailed
enquiry has accepted the case of the claimants that their son was employed
under the first respondent and was died during the course of employment
and accordingly quantified the compensation and awarded a sum of
Rs.10,24,799/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
filing of claim petition till the date of realization.
6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded, this appeal
has been filed by the second respondent/Insurance Company.
7. This appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Questions of
Law:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 03:46:34 pm )
“1.Whether the award of the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour-II, by adopting income of
Rs.11,619/- for the accident taken place on 23.06.2018
without considering the Central Government
Notification ie.e, fixing the income at Rs.8,000/- is
valid?”
8. This appeal was listed before me today (10.01.2025) and I have
heard the arguments of both sides and also perused the records available.
9. The major grievance raised by the counsel for the Insurance
Company is that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, after accepting the
case of the claimants that the deceased was a driver by profession and
though there is no documents produced to prove the income of the deceased,
based on the minimum wages notified by the State Government
G.O.Ms.No.2D, No.91, Department of Labour and Employment
Development dated 12.12.2013, fixed the notional income and awarded
compensation, which is against the principles of Section 4(1) of the
Employees Compensation Act more particularly Section (4) of the
Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. He further submitted that the
compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 03:46:34 pm )
excessive and prays to modify the same.
10. The learned counsel for the claimants fairly accepted that before
the Tribunal, they are not able to prove the income of the deceased however
the minimum wages notified by the State Government was taken into
consideration and compensation was awarded by the Deputy Commissioner
of Labour-II. He further submitted that in C.M.A.No.2581 of 2021 dated
13.02.2024 (Chandrasekaran vs. P.Marappan and Another) this Court has
already held and fixed the notional income based on the State Government
Notification issued in the Minimum Wages Act is not applicable while
awarding compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
11. I have considered the submissions made on both sides and also
perused the records available.
12. The substantial question of law framed herein is no longer res
integra and the Judgment of this Court in Chandrasekaran vs. P.Marappan
and Another case cited supra already held that, minimum wages fixed under
Minimum Wages Act, shall not be applied for fixing notional income for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 03:46:34 pm )
awarding compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The
relevant paragraph Nos.14 to 18 are extracted hereunder:
"14. As stated by the Apex Court in K. Sivaraman
and others vs. P. Sathishumar and others [2020 ACJ
1361] cited supra, the employee is entitled to get
compensation on the basis of actual monthly wages drawn
by them and the compensation shall not be restricted to
the extent of monthly wages notified by the Central
Government. The scheme of the provisions of the
Employee-s Compensation Act, 1923 contains various
provisions and directions for awarding compensation to
the deceased or the injured employee. The Sections 4 and
4(A) of the Employees Compensation Act contains
various provisions providing methodology to be taken up
for the purpose of fixing the monthly wages notified by the
Central Government. It also provides the rate of interest
and the damages payable to workmen. The Act further
provides provisions for recovery of the compensation
payable to the claimants therein. The major issue raised
herein is that whether adopting the minimum wages
prescribed by the State Government is to be taken up for
computing the monthly wages, instead the monthly wages
notified by the Central Government under Section 4~1(B)
of the Act, 1923.
15. While granting compensation under Motor
Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has to award compensation in
terms of Section 168, if the claim petition is filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 168 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as follows:
?Section 168: Award of the Claims Tribunal
(1) On receipt of an application for compensation
made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after
giving notice of the application to the insurer and after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 03:46:34 pm )
giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of
being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case
may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions
of [section 163] may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom compensation
shall be paid and in making the award the Claims
Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by
the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in
the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver
copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously
and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the
date of the award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the
person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such
award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing
the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire
amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal
may direct.?
16. For granting Just compensation prescribed
under Section 168 of the Act, no mechanism or provisions
for fixing the monthly wages, interest rate or damages etc.,
prescribed by legislature. If the petition is filed under
Section 163~A, II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act to
take care of and this one is based on the schedule i.e., the
fixed compensation. The Hon-ble Apex Court in Syed
Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Company [2014 (1)
TNMAC 459], approved adoption of the Minimum Wages
Act, while awarding compensation under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court is of the view that,
minimum wages fixed by State Government could not be
adopted under Workmen Compensation Act. Since, the
entire scheme of the Act 1923 shows that there cannot be
any deviation than the various limits or quantum notified
or fixed in the Act. More particularly, Section 4~1(B)
permits the Central Government to notify the monthly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 03:46:34 pm )
wages payable to the injured, if the employee could not
able to prove his actual monthly wages.
17. Recently, the Hon-ble Apex Court in Rani and
others vs. Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance
Co. Ltd., [2023 SCC Online SC 720] has approved adoption
of monthly wages notified by the Central Government
Under Section 4~1(B), for determining compensation less
than the notified amount has held as follows:
“5. The only basis for the High Court to reduce the
compensation is because of the averments in the written
statement. In this context, we may benefit by adverting to the
ratio in K. Sivaraman and Others vs. P. Sathishkumar and
Another , where adverting to the very same notification of
the Central Government, the following observation was
made by this Court:~
“8. In the meantime, a Notification was issued by the
Central Government on 31~5~2010 in the following terms:
“S.O.1258(E) ~ In exercise of the powers conferred by sub~
section (1B) of Section 4 of the Employee-s Compensation
Act, 1923, (8 of 1923), the Central Government hereby
specified, for the purpose of Sub~Section (1) of the said
section, the following amount as monthly wages, with effect
from the date of publication of this notification in the
Official Gazette, namely ? eight thousand rupees.“
9. The High Court was of the view that having due
regard to the fact that the legislation in question is a social
welfare legislation, the enhanced income of Rs.8000 per
month should form the basis of the computation. Thus,
applying the multiplicand in terms of Schedule IV, the High
Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 8,86,120.“
6. Seeing the above, we are of the considered opinion
that the High Court was in error by taking the lesser sum as
the monthly wages of the deceased which is well below the
figure that was notified in the Gazette Notification dated
31.05.2010, issued by the Ministry of Labour and
Employment. The Court-s 1 (2020) 4 SCC 594 order under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 03:46:34 pm )
the Workmen-s compensation Act dated 01.04.2016 is
accordingly restored.?
18. As held by the K. Sivaraman and others vs. P.
Sathishumar and others cited supra, if the claimants able to
prove their actual monthly salary, which is more than the
monthly wages notified by the Central Government, they are
entitled to get the actual monthly wages. In the absence of
proof of actual monthly wages, the Labour Commissioner
has no other alternative, other than the monthly wages
notified by the Central Government as per the Section
4~1(B) of the Act. Hence the question of law is answered
that the adoption of minimum wages prescribed by the State
Government could not be taken into account for awarding
compensation under the Act 1923 and the monthly wages
notified by the Central Government as per Section 4~1(B)
shall be adopted for awarding compensation. Accordingly,
the first question of law raised in this appeal is answered.
13. As discussed by this Court in the above Judgment admittedly, the
claimants were not able to prove the actual income of the deceased. The
Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, by relying on the Judgment of this
Court in C.M.A.No.897 of 2018 dated 27.01.2021 (P.Ramesh vs. Ravi and
Another) has fixed the notional income based on the minimum wages
notified by the State Government, I am of the view that Judgment of this
Court in Chandrasekaran vs. P.Marappan and Another cited supra is
applicable to the present case and also based on the fair submissions made
by the counsel for the claimants, I am inclined to follow the same and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 03:46:34 pm )
accordingly award is liable to be modified in terms of wages notified under
Section 4 (1) (B) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
14. As far as the compensation awarded under other heads are
concerned, this Court is of the view the same requires no modification and
the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai is hereby
confirmed. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of
the deceased at Rs.8,000/-. The age of the deceased 43 at the time of
accident and the multiplier is 175.54. The total loss of income arrived at
Rs.7,02,160/- [8000 X 175.54 X 50%] and Funeral Expenses at Rs.5,000/-.
Thus, total amount of compensation is arrived at Rs.7,07,160/-. Accordingly
the award is modified.
15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed allowed
awarding 12% interest per annum from the date of accident till the date of
deposit. The appellant/M/s.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company
Limited, is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.7,07,160/-
[Rupees Seven Lakhs Seven Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only] along
with interest and costs to the credit of E.C.No.166 of 2019, on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 03:46:34 pm )
Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of
Labour-II, Chennai, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this Judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
10.01.2025
ssi
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No
To:
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II,
Commissioner for Employees Compensation,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Chennai.
K. RAJASEKAR., J.
ssi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 03:46:34 pm )
10.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 03:46:34 pm )
