Mamta Devi vs The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3904 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10447 of 2019)

MAMTA DEVI & ORS. Appellant (s)

VERSUS

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

Leave granted.

1) A challenge is laid to the correctness and

legality of the judgment dated 01.10.2018 passed in

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 777 of 2014 by the High

Court of Judicature at Patna, whereunder, the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Nidhi Ahuja Date: 2023.06.05 11:35:38 IST appeal filed by the claimants assailing the order Reason:

dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Deputy Labour

1 Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen

Compensation, in CWC No. 24 of 2011 allowing the

claim petition in part, directing the opposite

party No. 1 - Reliance General Insurance Company

Limited (first respondent herein) to pay

compensation to the tune of Rs.4,31,671/- has been

set aside, on the ground that the dispute raised

was a contested case and it is coram-non-judice.

2) We have heard the arguments of Mr. Atil Inam,

learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as

also Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No. 1, and perused the case papers.

3) Appellants/Claimants are wife, son and parents

of late Sri Vakil Choudhary who had been employed by

the second respondent as truck driver and had met

with a road accident in the night of 21.04.2011 at

10.30 p.m. and as a result of the accidental

injuries sustained, succumbed to the same. Hence,

seeking compensation on account of death occurring

during the course of employment and contending

inter alia that he used to earn Rs.6,000/- p.m. as

2 wages from his employer, claim petition was lodged

before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-

Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. On notice

being issued, the insurer of the offending vehicle

appeared and filed written statement but,

thereafter, the matter was not pursued further by

the respondents. On the basis of the material

evidence that came to be placed by the claimants,

the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for

Workmen Compensation adjudicated the claim and

awarded a sum of Rs.4,31,671/- and ordered for

payment of interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the

date of the accident till the amount is deposited.

To award said compensation, Tribunal considered the

income of the deceased at Rs.150/- per day and

computed the total monthly income for 26 working

days at Rs.3,900/- p.m. and half of the same, at

Rs.1,950/- as loss of income to the claimants and

adopting the relevant multiplier/factor as

stipulated under the The Workmen’s Compensation Act,

1923 (VIII of 1923)(hereinafter referred to as ‘W.C.

Act’ for brevity) at 221.37, determined the total

compensation accordingly.

3

4) This Award was challenged by the claimants as

being abysmally on the lower side has resulted in a

worsened scenario viz., the Award itself was held to

be one without jurisdiction viz., Deputy Labour

Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen

Compensation had no jurisdiction on the premise that

it was a contested matter on account of the written

statement having been filed by the insurer and there

being a embargo as per notification issued under

Section 20(1) and (2) of the W.C. Act.

5) By virtue of the power vested under sub-Section

(1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the

appropriate Government had issued notification

whereunder under clause (a), the presiding officers

of the Labour Court were entrusted with adjudication

of claims of all contested cases arising under the

Act.

6) As could be seen from the impugned order, the

only reasoning adopted for arriving at a conclusion

that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner

4 for Workmen Compensation Commissioner had no

jurisdiction or the fact which weighed in the mind

of the High Court to non-suit the claim was on

account of the written statement having been filed

by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who were also

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Deputy Labour

Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen

Compensation.

7) The records on hand would disclose that there

was no further contest of the claim petition by

them. On the other hand, the employer had clearly

admitted the averments made in the claim petition

filed by the claimants. In other words, there was

no contest. The insurer of the offending vehicle

having filed the written statement seems to have not

cross examined the claimants and their witnesses.

Thus, the claim lodged by the claimants seeking for

compensation would not partake the character of a

“contested claim” as stipulated under the

notification issued by the appropriate Government

under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the W.C. Act. On

this count itself, it has to be held that High Court

fell in error in arriving at a conclusion that claim

5 petition was not maintainable before the Deputy

Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen

Compensation and claimants had to pursue their

grievance before the jurisdictional Labour Court.

8) In the normal course, we would have remitted

the matter back to the High Court for adjudicating

the appeal on merits. However, we desist from doing

so for the simple reason that the first claimant

being a widow, the second claimant being the son and

the third and the fourth claimants being the parents

of the deceased are still awaiting for a reasonable

compensation to be awarded.

9) Hence, we have heard the learned Advocates

appearing for the parties on the issue of quantum of

just compensation which requires to be awarded to

the claimants.

10) At this juncture itself, it would be apt and

appropriate to note that the insurer viz., the first

respondent herein pursuant to the Award passed by

the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for

Workmen Compensation has deposited the award amount

as submitted before this Court by the learned

6 counsel. The insurer also did not assail the Award

passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-

Commissioner for Workmen Compensation dated

10.10.2014. In other words, it accepted its

liability and is stated to have satisfied the Award

passed. When this being the factual position, we

would have to necessarily examine as to whether

compensation awarded in favour of claimants is in

terms of the statutory mandate.

11) Having regard to the object of the Act which

envisages dispensation of social justice, we are of

the considered view that the Deputy Labour

Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen

Compensation fell in error in arriving at a

conclusion that claimants’ income is to be construed

at Rs.3,900/- p.m. or the minimum wage to be

computed should be at Rs.150/- per day in the

absence of any proof of income. The written

statement filed by the employer would be a complete

answer to this, inasmuch as it is categorically

admitted by the employer that deceased was drawing

Rs.6,000/- per month as wages. The deceased was a

truck driver and had four mouths to feed at the time

7 of his demise in the year 2011. By no stretch of

imagination, it can be construed that income which

he was earning as claimed by his wife in her

statement made on oath can be construed as excessive

or not commensurate with the wages earned by a truck

driver in the year 2011.

12) Thus, the irresistible conclusion which we have

to draw is, the unchallenged statement of the wife

of the deceased who had deposed that her husband was

earning Rs.6,000/- per month deserves to be accepted

as gospel truth. We see no reason for disbelieving

her statement.

13) In the light of the aforestated discussion, the

quantification of the compensation will have to be

redetermined by construing the income of the

deceased at Rs.6,000/- and after deducting 50 per

cent of the same loss of income to the claimants

will have to be held at Rs.3,000/- per month and

adopting the appropriate factor having regard to the

fact that the deceased was 22 years at the time of

his accidental death, the appropriate multiplier

would be 221.37. Thus, the compensation that the

8 claimants would be entitled to would be Rs.3,000 X

221.37 which is equal to Rs.6,64,110/- (Rupees Six

Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred and Ten only).

14) The mandate of the Act insofar as payment of

interest is concerned is clear and unambiguous viz.,

the claimants would be entitled to interest @ 12 per

cent per annum from one month after the date of

accident till date of payment. Thus, claimants

would be entitled to the interest accordingly,

excluding the amount which is said to have been paid

or deposited by the first respondent-insurer.

15) For the reasons aforestated, we allow this

appeal in part and set aside the impugned judgment

dated 01.10.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Application

No. 777 of 2014 by the High Court of Judicature at

Patna and award a compensation of Rs.6,64,110/-

(Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred

and Ten only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from one

month from the date of accident till date of payment

excluding the amount already paid or deposited by

the first respondent-insurer.

9

16) The balance amount shall be deposited by the

first respondent-insurer before the Deputy Labour

Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen

Compensation, Magadh Division, Gaya, in C.W.C. Case

No.24 of 2011 expeditiously and at any rate, within

six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of

this order.

17) Costs made easy.

………………………………………………………….J. [ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]

………………………………………………………..J. [ ARAVIND KUMAR ]

New Delhi;

May 19, 2023.

10