K. Ganga Reddy 2 Ors vs B. Gopal Reddy Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3431 Tel

     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

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

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.

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