IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.361 of 2005 Most. Heera Kunwar, wife of Late Ramdhani Singh, mother of deceased Arvind Kumar Singh, Resident of at Present in House of Baliram Prasad Singh, Chithour Nagar, Area Aurangabad (Bihar) permanent address Resident of village – Peggar Post Lhhorsi, P.S. Panki, District – Palamu (Jharkhand). ……….. Applicant ………. Appellant. Versus 1. National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Officer, North Gandhi Maidan, Shastri Market, Gaya, P.S. Civil Lines, Dist – Gaya, Bihar. 2. Shri Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Ritan Singh, Resident of Mohalla – South Chand Mari Road, Patna. ………. Opp. Parties…. Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. N.K.P. Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents :- Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate. 07/ 16.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order dated 04.07.2005 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner - cum – Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, Magadh Division, Gaya in C.W.C. Case No. 4 of 2004 by which he has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,66,904/- regarding death of Arvind Kumar Singh to the appellant who is the mother of 2 the deceased. However, learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned order of compensation on the ground that the deceased was in service and was getting Rs.4,000/- per month as salary and Rs.40/- per month as the daily Khorakhi but instead of the said amount wages has been fixed at Rs.1605/- per month as the minimum wages. However, contended that even on the date of the order minimum wages was not Rs.1605/- but it was Rs.1761/- and has contended that even if taking the minimum wage the wage must have been computed @ Rs.1761/- per month and hence challenged the order. Though the compensation has been computed taking the age of the victim as 30 years and hence the multiple of Rs.207.98 apply as per the Schedule in the Workmen Compensation Act which has not been disputed and hence the only point raised is about the income / wage of the deceased. Learned counsel for the Insurance 3 Company, however, contended that there is no documentary evidence about the salary of the victim and even the owner of the vehicle has not come forward to support regarding the salary of the victim and only two witnesses in oral evidence on the point which is found not reliable and hence the wage has rightly been fixed on the minimum wage of the deceased. Hence on respective submissions the question for consideration as to what ought to be the wage or salary of the victim deceased on the date of occurrence. However, the evidence has been adduced about the wage but neither the owner appeared to support the case nor any register or document has been proved and the two oral evidence adduced also do not establish that they were under the employment of the owner. The oral evidence by the witness’s mother and brother who are the beneficiaries unable to give any chit of paper about salary and hence the order of the Tribunal that in the absence of a clear proof of 4 salary, actual salary paid or wage rightly relied upon the Minimum Wages Act. However, the Tribunal has computed the income @ Rs.1605/- per month as minimum wages but the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a notification bearing no. 5 / NW 4027/OL – E – 944 / 31 – 3 /04 fixing the minimum wage of the various employees and a Public Work under Employment Public Motor Transport and has fixed the minimum wage as Rs.1761/- per month and hence the appellant is entitled to receive this much amount as minimum wages and hence learned counsel for the insurance, however, contended and the Insurance Company, however, cannot dispute this notification showing the minimum wage of Khalasi as Rs.1761/- per month and hence I find and hold that the minimum wage of the appellant was Rs.1761/- per month and the claimant is entitled to half of the salary of deceased will multiply of 207.98 as stated above and hence computing the income which comes to Rs.1,89,340/- and out of 5 which Rs.1,66,904/- and hence the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1761/2 x 207.98 = 183126.39/- out of which he has already received Rs.1605/2 x 207.98 = 166903.95/- and hence is entitled for a difference of Rs.1761/2 x 207.98 = 183126.39/- x (1605 / 2 x 207.98) i.e. (880.5 – 802.5 x 207.98) = 16,222.44/- and hence the respondent is directed to pay the amount. However, any claim of the appellant for interest on the amount not being paid within (30) thirty days is not subject matter in this appeal as the matter may be raised, if so advised before the Commissioner and hence the appeal is allowed in part. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)