HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is directed against the order dated 8.03.2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour at Warangal-II, (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in W.C.No. 8 of 2004 filed by the claimants, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- for the death of deceased B. Balaiah, aged 48 years was working as labourer on the Tractor & Trailer bearing No. 36T 2376 & 2377 of the first respondent, Owner, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 24.3.2003 at about 05.00 a.m near Market Junction, the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed due to which the trailer turned turtle and the deceased fell underneath the trailer and received grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on the same day in the MGM Hospital, Waranagal. Police Inthezargunj registered a case in Crime No. 54/2004 under Section 304 A against the driver of the trailer. 2. The Commissioner having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 36T 2376 and 2377 of the first respondent and the deceased was a workman under Section 2(n) (1) of Workmen’s Compensation Act and taking into consideration of Ex. A-3, age of the deceased was 48 years and as per PWs 1 and 2 his wages were Rs. 150/- per day , which was confirmed by the first respondent-Owner in his counter, and as per Section 4 read with Schedule IV of W.C. Act the commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation determined the compensation as Rs. 3,11,610/- payable to the claimants by the respondents jointly and severally along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company submits that the Commissioner failed to see that there is no statutory liability on the part of the Insurance Company and more so under Section 4 of W.C. Act. The learned Commissioner would have taken only minimum wages Act into consideration. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants submits that the order passed by the Commissioner is based on facts on record and no interference is needed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the evidence on record, the deceased was working as a labourer on the Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 36T 2376 & 2377, drawing Rs. 150/- towards daily wages from the first respondent. Hence, it is no doubt true that the deceased was a workman under Section 2(n) (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Under Minimum Wages Act for Public Motor Transport Employees in respect of Mazdoor, the minimum wage prescribed as Rs. 2,607.25. 7. I have perused the schedule under Minimum Wages Act for workers the amount of wages was prescribed as Rs. 4,500/-. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if an amount of Rs. 3,000/- is taken as wages per month. In case of death as per Section 4 (c ) (2) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, 50% of the wages has to be deducted. If deducted 50% out of 3,000/- the net wages comes to Rs. 1500/- per month and the relevant multiplier for 48 years is 159.80 if applied the total amount comes to Rs. 2,39,700/- (1500/- x 159.80 = 2,39,700/-). 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part reducing the compensation from Rs. 3,11,610/- to Rs. 2,39,700/- . There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 05.08.2010 KA