IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 MFA.No. 729 of 2002() --------------------- WCC.9/1999 of W.C.C. & CONTRACT L.BOARD,TVM. .................... APPELLANTS: 2 & 3RD OPPOSITE PARTY: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KAZHAKKOOTTAM MAJOR SECTION,K.S.E.B., KAZHAKKOOTTAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB RESPONDENT: 1ST & 2ND APPLICANT/1ST OPPOSITE PARTY: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.AYYAPPAN,SANTHA NIVAS, TOWN ROAD, KAZHAKKOOTTAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. A.SANTHA, SANTHA NIVAS, TOWN ROAD, KAZHAKKOOTTAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VIJAYAKUMAR, CONTRACTOR, MELEMADATHUMOOLA VEEDU, ANDOORKKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. ------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.729 OF 2002 (E) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Unfortunate parents of a workman, who at the age of 20, succumbed to fatal injuries during the course of employment, approached the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for compensation. He was employed by a third opposite party, who is a contractor to the appellant, Kerala State Electricity Board. It is not disputed that accident occurred during the course of employment under the 3rd opposite party. It is also further admitted that 3rd opposite party was executing the concerned work for and on behalf of the appellant K.S.E.B. as he was a registered contractor of the Electricity Board. The accident occurred during the course of employment as due to short circuit while he was working in the establishment. Commissioner awarded compensation as per the provisions of the Act. 2. First disputed question is that since he was a contract MFA.729/02 2 employee employed by a contractor, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides that principal employer is liable to pay compensation. Commissioner did not accept the contention for an order for recovery because the accident occurred due to the fault of the appellant himself. Next contention is that Rs.2,000/- taken as the monthly income was on the high side. It is the contention that the deceased was a casual worker who got employment for 6 to 7 days in a week. The method of calculating wages is mentioned under Section 5 of the Act. Under Section 5(c), it is stated that if it is not possible for want of necessary information to calculate the monthly wages under clause (b), the monthly wages shall be thirty times the total wages earned in respect of the last continuous period of service immediately preceding the accident from the employer who is liable to pay compensation, divided by the number of days comprising such period. Therefore, according to the appellant, only 7 days he has worked. If the daily wages multiplied by 30 and only minimum wages is taken, the monthly income will be much higher than R.2,000/-. But in view of the statutory limit, only Rs.2,000/- can be taken into account. Thirdly, it was contended that interest MFA.729/02 3 granted at the rate of 12% is on the right side. Section 4A, 3A provides payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank. Therefore, 12% interest charged is a statutory rate of interest and no interference is needed. Finally, it was contended that the claimant's parents themselves were earning, and therefore, they are not dependents and relied on Section 2(d), second was his mother. Mother was not employed and only father was employed and even if coming under Section 2(d) (i), (ii) and (iii), as a parent, Section 2(b) or 3(d) will be applicable. It has been held that interpretation of Workmen's compensation Act should be in consensus with the object of the Act and the accident occurred during the course of employment and Commissioner has awarded compensation strictly as per the provisions of the Act. We see no ground to interfere with the same, and hence, appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.HEMA, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO.729 OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 4th March, 2008