THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A No.2596 of 2001 JUDGMENT: How-so-ever beneficial certain legislations may be, the expected result cannot be achieved if the implementation is kept in the hands of cynical persons. This case presents an example. The Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short ‘the Act’) is enacted to ensure that the workmen themselves in the event of their sustaining injuries or their dependents in case the workmen die in the course of employment, are paid adequate compensation. The Act is so comprehensive that the objective formulae are incorporated and injuries are classified, to ensure that there does not exist any element of subjectivity in the matter of awarding compensation. The appellants herein filed W.C. Case No.65 of 1999 before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation & Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-I claiming compensation on account of death of Ashok Reddy, husband of appellant No.1, father of appellant No.2 and son of appellant Nos.3 and 4. It was pleaded that Ashok Reddy was employed as a cleaner to work upon a lorry bearing No.AMP 5243 and that the said lorry, loaded with groundnut husk, was proceeding from Kodumal to Hyderabad. It was stated that when it reached Nagalapuram, the lorry met with an accident, resulting in death of Ashok Reddy and injuries to various other persons. The age of the deceased was said to be 25 years and his wages Rs.2,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Commissioner. The case was contested by respondent No.2 alone. A counter was filed by respondent No.2 disputing the various facts mentioned in the claim petition. The appellants were put to strict proof of the facts pleaded by them. The Commissioner dismissed the case through order, dated 10.09.2001, on the ground that there is some doubt as to the identity of the person, who died in the accident. Hence, this appeal. Sri M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the Commissioner failed to take note of the documentary evidence comprising of F.I.R., inquest report, post- mortem report, M.V.I. report and charge sheet, which clearly mentioned that the deceased was Ashok Reddy. He submits that the Commissioner exhibited an indifferent attitude, which does not befit a person holding that office and denied the benefit under a legislation enacted as a social security measure. Sri Ravi Shankar Jandyala, learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that the appellants failed to prove that Ashok Reddy died in the course of employment and that the Commissioner was left with no alternative, except to reject the claim. To prove their case, the appellants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and filed Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of F.I.R; Ex.A2 is inquest report; Ex.A3 is post-mortem report; Ex.A4 is M.V.I. report and Ex.A5 is charge sheet. Respondent No.1 did not enter appearance and that the fact that Ashok Reddy was employed with him as a cleaner, remained unrebutted. The Commissioner dismissed the case only on the ground that the evidence before her is not sufficient to establish that the name of the deceased was Ashok Reddy. The perversity of this finding is evident from the record itself. In Ex.A1, the fact that an accident occurred and one person died was mentioned. However, the complainant therein stated that he does not know the name of the person, who died in the accident. The police took up the matter on the basis of the F.I.R. After registering a crime, the dead body was sent for inquest and in the inquest report marked as Ex.A2, the name of the deceased was mentioned as Ashok Reddy. In the post-mortem report also, full details of the deceased were mentioned and his name was shown as Ashok Reddy. After the investigation was completed, the Police filed a charge sheet in the criminal case. There also, the name of the cleaner, who died in the accident, was mentioned as Ashok Reddy. It is rather unfortunate that the Commissioner, who heard the case, did not care to look into this evidence and exhibited her cynical approach. She was desperately in search of a ground to reject the claim and her scrutiny of the case stopped with Ex.A1. She built up a case on the basis of the uncertainty in Ex.A1 and ultimately rejected the claim. This Court takes serious exception to the manner in which the Commissioner dealt with the matter. Had the appeal been heard soon after the order was passed by the Commissioner, there would have been a possibility to direct the Government to ensure that the Officer, who passed the order in the case, is kept outside the adjudicatory functions. Once it emerged that Ashok Reddy is the person, who died in the accident and that he was employed with respondent No.1, the inescapable conclusion is that the compensation must be awarded. The age factor as per the Act, for a person of 25 years is 216.9. 50% of the wages need to be taken into account and it comes to Rs.1,000/- and the resultant figure would be Rs.2,16,900/-. It is no doubt true that the respondents claimed only Rs.1,50,000/-. However, that should not come in the way of this Court awarding compensation, as mandated by the Act. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed and the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded to the appellants. The award of interest under the provisions of the Act is in the discretion of the Court. The interest at 6% per annum is awarded from the date of presentation of the claim. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.11.2011. kdl