THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2179 OF 2004 DATED: 27-11-2009 Between: Latchumanan & another. ..... APPELLANTS And M/s Ganga Borewells & another .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 13-05-2003, in W.C.No.233 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for the Workmen’s Compensation and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nizamabad District, wherein the claim of the appellants herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,99,233/-. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Appellants filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased-Alli Muthu, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 13-05-1997. Appellants are the parents of the deceased, who was aged 23 years and died unmarried. According to them, the deceased was working as a labourer on the borewell rotation motor lorry bearing No.AP 25 B 8595 under the employment of the 1st respondent herein and that on 13-05-1997 during the course of such employment while the deceased was travelling on the borewell lorry, on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, the lorry came into contact with a live electrical wire as a result of which the deceased died on account of the electric shock. The claimants further pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.3000/- per month by way of salary. 4. 1st respondent remained ex parte. 2nd respondent-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying the liability to pay the compensation and also denying that the deceased was under employment with the 1st respondent. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the appellants. The owner of the borewell lorry was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1-copy of the policy was marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner held that the deceased was under the employment of R.W.1 and he died in the accident that occurred in the course of such employment. The said finding has become final and the same is not challenged by any appeal. The learned Commissioner further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,99,233/-. Not satisfied with the award, the applicants filed the present appeal. 7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Commissioner erred in taking the wages of the deceased at Rs.1800/- per month ignoring the evidence of R.W.1 that he was paying Rs.3000/- per month. The evidence on record would go to show that the deceased was employed as a labourer by R.W.1 on the borewell lorry. There is however no evidence to show the wages paid to the deceased by R.W.1. Though R.W.1 gave oral evidence to the effect that he was paying Rs.3000/- per month towards wages to the deceased, he has not chosen to produce any Wage Register or Acquittance Register to show the payment of any such amount by him. In the absence of any such documentary evidence, which ought to have been produced but not produced by R.W.1, his oral testimony regarding the quantum of wages was rightly rejected by the learned Commissioner. 8. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was working as a labourer, the learned Commissioner has taken the daily wages @ Rs.60/- per day which comes to Rs.1800/- per month and the same is considered to be just and reasonable in the absence of any evidence to the contra. The deceased was aged 22 years by the date of his death and he was unmarried and applying the multiplying factor 221.37 and taking 50% of the wages the learned Commissioner estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.1,99,233/- and awarded the same. There is absolutely no valid or justifiable ground for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner. In the circumstances, the impugned award is held not liable to be interfered with. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, in the event of the amount awarded not having been deposited by the respondents, the appellants are entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. from the date the amount fell due. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th November, 2009 Tsy