IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1260 of 2000 Between: Smt. Kamalamma & 6 others .. Appellants AND K. Yadaiah & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1260 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in W.C.No.1492 of 1996, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Ranga Reddy Zone, dated 17.12.1999. 2. The appeal arose out of the claim made by the dependents/legal representatives of the deceased Dharawath Bhadru who died while working as a labourer on lorry No.AP 28T/5152 when it met with an accident on 31/1.09.1996. The Uppal Police registered Crime No.272 of 1996 about the accident by the lorry owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The deceased was claimed to be earning Rs.2,000/- per month at the age of 35 years and hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 3. While the owner of the lorry admitted the employment of the deceased with him on a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- and the death of the deceased in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment, the insurer denied all the allegations made by the claimants. 4. During the course of the enquiry before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1, while the owner of the lorry was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-7, B-1, R-1 and R-2 were marked. 5. The Commissioner rendered the impugned order firstly holding that the deceased was employed as a labourer on the lorry of the first respondent and that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment in which Dharawath Bhadru died. The age of the deceased was taken as 40 years as specified in the Post Mortem Report, Ex.A-3. In the absence of any other evidence, the Commissioner did not accept the claim of the owner of the lorry that he was paying Rs.60/- per day to the deceased, but relied on G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 16.04.1991 in respect of mazdoor job which is covered under the Scheduled Employment, under the Minimum Wages Act, of Public Motor Transport. The Commissioner, accordingly, assessed the compensation at Rs.1,136.25 Ps. per month which was the minimum wage and both the respondents were directed to pay the said compensation of Rs.1,05,240/- including Rs.400/- towards Advocate fee and Rs.209/- towards court fee. The respondents were directed to pay the same within 30 days. 6. The claimants are the appellants who contended that the compensation awarded was not reasonable as the Commissioner should have accepted the evidence of the employer that he was paying Rs.1,800/- per month and 50% deduction is contrary to law. Hence, the appellant sought for the grant of the remaining amount of Rs.1,44,760/- claimed by them. 7. Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. P. Vijaya Laxmi, learned counsel for the insurer are heard and none entered appearance for the owner of the vehicle before this Court. 8. The finding of the Commissioner that the deceased was employed on the subject lorry as a labourer under the first respondent and that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment of the deceased was not challenged by any party. The age of the deceased taken as 40 years on the basis of Ex.A- 3-Post Mortem Report was also not in dispute. It is only the quantum of compensation and the basis for assessment of the same that are in question in this appeal. 9. The application for compensation claimed the monthly wages of the deceased to be Rs.2,000/- per month and the owner of the lorry was stated to have not disputed the same by way of any pleading. The first claimant as P.W.1 also reiterated such a claim, but admitted that she did not file any certificate showing that her husband was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. The owner of the lorry/the first respondent examined as R.W.1 did not specifically reiterate the admission in his counter that he was paying a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as salary. He was only speaking about his claim of paying Rs.60/- per day as daily wages and admittedly, he did not maintain any registers or any record. Though he denied that he has tried to help the claimants by inflating the salary, in the absence of any documentary evidence to show that he was paying a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- and in view of the discrepancy between the claim that he was paying a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- and his evidence that he was paying Rs.60/- per day as daily wages, the deceased has to be taken as daily wage labourer. While it is true that the real wages being paid in the open market may be higher than the minimum wages fixed by the Government under the statute at the relevant time, if the deceased was being paid daily wages, they are to be reasonably assessed as being paid for about 25 days in a month taking the overall vagaries of availability of work on a lorry through out the year. If so, his monthly wages have to be assessed on the probabilities arising out of the material on record at Rs.1,500/- per month and if so, the compensation payable in terms of the statute will be Rs.1,38,127.50 Ps. for which the Advocate fee and the court fee shall be added. The compensation already awarded should, therefore, be enhanced by Rs.33,496/-. 10. The award was made on 17.12.1999 and as per the record, a memo was filed by the insurer about depositing the amount awarded by the impugned award on 01.03.2000. 11. Section 4A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, lays down the liability to pay compensation along with simple interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of lending rates of the scheduled banks on the amount due whenever there was a default by the employer in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due. Precedents have uniformly laid down that the date of injury or the date of death is the starting point of one month period stipulated in Section 4A(3) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and it was also held that the date of issue of the orders of the Commissioner is not the relevant date and, therefore, interest ought to have been awarded from the expiry of a period of one month from the date of the accident, i.e., 01.09.1996 in terms of the statute which was not awarded by the Tribunal. Such interest has to be, therefore, paid on the entire compensation including the enhanced compensation. 12. Accordingly, the award in W.C.No.1492 of 1996, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Ranga Reddy Zone, Hyderabad, dated 17.12.1999, is modified by enhancing the compensation by a further sum of Rs.33,496/- and awarding interest on the entire compensation of Rs.1,38,127.50 Ps. at 12% per annum from 01.10.1996 till the date of payment of the compensation and no interest will be payable on the Advocate fee and court fee of Rs.400/- and Rs.209/- respectively. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 8th February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1260 of 2000 Date: 8th February, 2011 KL