IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 300 of 2005 United India Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant. Versus Smt. Kamala Devi and 6 others .. Respondents. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Upreti, Advocate for the claimants/respondents. None has appeared for respondent No.7 (owner of the vehicle) Dated: 9-6-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, U/S 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 6.5.2005, passed by Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate Pithoragarh, in WCC No. 4 of 2004. 2- Perusal of record reveals that Bhupendra Singh was employed driver on Jeep No. U.P. 03/4081 owned by Opposite Party Kishan Singh. On 22-9-2003 Bhupendra Singh was plying the jeep on Adkini –Wadda road. The jeep met with an accident near Jhaulkhet, due to which the driver died at the spot. According to the petitioners, the deceased was 29 years of age and was getting Rs. 3,500/- per month salary. 3- The United India Insurance Company filed its written statement and denied the allegations of the petition. It alleged that the vehicle involved in the accident must have valid registration, fitness, and its driver should possess valid and effective driving license. 4- Parties adduced evidence in support of their cases. The learned Workmen’s Compensation 2 Commissioner after having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,67,360/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from 22.9.2003 till the date of actual payment, against the United India Insurance Company. 5- Feeling aggrieved, the United India Insurance Company has preferred this appeal before this Court. 6- Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Commissioner has wrongly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3,500/- whereas the owner of the offending Jeep has specifically alleged in his statement before the trial court that he used to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month. He also submitted that the claimants did not file any evidence to support their version that the deceased was getting Rs. 3,500/- per month salary. 7- I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The record reveals that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- per month. The assessment of the income of the deceased appears to be absolutely on higher side. The owner of the vehicle has nowhere specifically stated in the written statement that what amount of salary has been paid to the deceased. The owner of the vehicle appeared before the court as D.W.1 and he admitted in his cross-examination that he used to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month as salary to the deceased. He, in his examination-in-chief, has also deposed that he used to pay Rs. 2,500/- per month as salary to the deceased. The statement of the owner remains un-controverted and the claimants have not filed any cogent and reliable evidence in order to show that 3 the deceased had been getting much more salary than Rs. 2,500/- per month from his employer. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, has thus, fell in error in calculating the amount of compensation on the basis of Rs. 3,500/- per month. The amount of compensation should have been calculated keeping in view the fact that the deceased had been earning Rs. 2,500/- per month from his employer. 8- In view of the Schedule-IV given under Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the amount of compensation, keeping in view the age of the deceased as 29 years, is to be calculated adopting the factor of 209.92 and thus the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimants comes to Rs. 2,62,400/-. 9- Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents has made rival submission before this Court that the interest awarded by the Commissioner in the impugned judgment and award is on lesser side. 10- In view of the provisions of Section 4A (3)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the learned Commissioner had to direct that the amount of compensation should be paid along with a simple interest of 12% per annum instead of 8% as has been awarded by the Commissioner. 11- In view of the observations made by me in the body of the judgment, I come to the conclusion that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified and the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 4 12- Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 6-5-2005 is modified upto the extent that a sum of Rs. 2,62,400/- is awarded compensation to the claimants instead of Rs. 3,67,360/-, as has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest @ 12% per annum instead of 8% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual payment, as has been indicated by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner in the impugned award. 13- The learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has given direction that a sum of Rs. Three Lacs should be deposited in monthly income scheme in some Post Office. As the amount has been reduced, therefore, Rs. Two Lacs should be deposited instead of Rs. Three Lacs, in the aforesaid scheme. ( B.C.Kandpal, J.) ISB