HJGHCOURT^3F^HHATT[SGARHATBILASPUR SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. SHR! SUNiL KUMAR SSNHA, 2 ApDellants Smt. Godavari Bai, W/o Late Shri Sant Kumar Vishwakarma, aged about.24years, Vilage-Jhurali Thana & Tehsii Pa!i, Distt. Korba (C.G.). Rahul Kumar S/o Late Sri Sant Kumar Vishwakarma, Aged about 2 years, Village Jhurali, Post & Tehsi! Paii, Distt. Korba (C.G.). Through Legal Guardian and mother Godavari Bai. 1. 2. 4. 5. Shyam Narayan Yadav, S/o Kachru Ram R/o Village Saila, Post & Tehsil Pali, Distt. Korba (C.G'.). Jagdish Prasad Agarwai, S/o Kailash Chandra Agarwal, R/o Saila Road, Pali, Post & Tehsil Pali, Distt. Korba (C.G.), : The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Bilaspur (C.G). Smt. Janki Bai, W/o Shri' Rarrieshar Vishwakarma 'Rameshar Vishwakarma, S/o Kalyan Sai Vishwakarma, Both are R/o Village Salia, Post & Tehsil Paii, Distt. Korba (C.G.). -< WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT. Present: S'nri A.P. Sharma, counsel forthe appellants. None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served. Shri Suryakaht Mishra, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, counsel for respondents >.4 and 5. -. •th The following order of the Court was passed The appellants, unfortunate widow and minor son of deceased Sant Kumar Vishwakarma have filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's CompensatiQn Act, for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded bythe Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/ Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No.59/WCA/COC- 1-B/02 (F) Claim. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.3,27,705/- claimed by respondents No.4 Smt. Janki Bai and No.5 Rameshar Vishwakarma, parents of deceased Sant Kumar Vishwakarma, for h1s death in the accident during the course of his employment with respondent-No.2 Jaggi @ Jaadish Prasad Agarwal on 03.01.2002; t.he Commissioner for Wockmen's Compensation awarded a total ,sum of.Rs.1,63,853/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of flling of th.e accident till the date of actual pavment, in the event of insurer's faiiure to deposit the ..ii? '.A .^s^ \.^^ < amount of compensation within one month of the passing of the award. 3) The Commissioner.for Workmen's Compensation on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Sant Kumar Vishwakarma died in the accident on 03.01.2002 duringthe course of his employment with respondent No.2 Jaggi @ Jagdish Prasad Agarwal; as the vehicle metador bearing registration No.MP-26/D/5461 was insured with respondent No.3 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 4) As the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded bythe Commissioner have now attained finality. 5) The Commissioner assessed the incom.e of the deceased at Rs.50/—perday and Rs.1,500/- per month. By multiplying the amount of Rs.750/- i.e. 50% of the monthly wages of Rs.1,500/-, with the factor value of 218.47; thecompensation was worked out to Rs.1,63,853/-. The Commissioner, thus, awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,63,853/- to the claimants for the death of deceased Sant Kumar Vishwakarma. The Commissioner further directed p^'yment of interest on the above amount of compensation 6f Rs.1,63,853/- @ 12% perannum from the date of the accident till the'date of actual payment, in the event of insurer's failure to deposit the amount of compensation within one month of the passing ofthe-award. li ^^..^•^;;;,,, '.^' l;-(.-t~..^A>^%t. '? ^^:'"C-'^T%> ^ y/ vv'y -^ 6) After passing of the aboveaward dated 31.03.2003, appellants Smt Godavari Bai and ftahui Kumar, widow and minor son of the deceased appears to have approached the Commissioner for apportionment of the amount of compensation of Rs.1,63.853/- which was awarded vide award dated 31.03.2003. The Commissioner vide order dated 04.11.2003, apportioned above amount of compensation of Rs.1,63,853/- in the the manner: Godavari Bai (widow) Rahui Kumar (son) Rameshar (fsther) Smt Janki Bai (mother) Rs.58,853/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.40,000/- Rs.40,000/- 7) . Shri AP Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants vehementiy argued that the Commissioner has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,63,853/- and in unfairly apportioning the above amount between the widow and son on the one hand and the parents on the other hand. 8) Shri Suryakant Mishra, learfted counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited," on the other hand, -supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,63,85?/- ^v/arded by the Commissioner is just and proper ••./.' . • ' compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 9) Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5, parents ofthe deceased alsosupported the award. 10) So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner is concerned, under the provisions of Workmen's ^E^lfe. '< ti. .ifVWSIIst. St, '~^;.^^^ 1 :-^.' Compensation Act, the compensation has to be worked out by multiplying 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased with the appropriate factor value.. Though the claimants pleaded before the Commissioner that deceased Sant Kumar Vishwakarma used to earn Rs.100/- per day, the empioyer categoricaliy pleaded before the Commissioner that only Rs.50/- per day was being paid to the deceased as waaes. The Commissioner on the basis ofthe above fliaterial assessed the wages of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day and Rs.1,500/-per month. Deceased Sant Kumar Vishwakarma on the date of the accident was aged about 24 years. The relevant factor value under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act for the age of 24 years is 218.47.' The Commissioner, thererore, has rightly assessed the compensation at Rs.1,63,853/- by multiplying Rs.750/- i.e. 50% ofthe monthly wages ofthe deceased of Rs.1,500/- with the relevant factor value of 218.47. 11) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancementofthe compensation awarded by the Commissioner. 12) The apportionment of the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,63,853/- bv the Commissioner between the widow and son of the decea^ed on one hand and the parents ofthe deceased on the bther hand, in our opinion.^also does not call for any interference in , this appeal. 13) We, therefore; •do not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal for our decision. , 1 ' 'l ^;^,s^-v ^a ^f^v^^', 14) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismissed. 15) No order as to costs, ^.£.sd^ : . . GhiefJustice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge subbu