In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... CM No.1652-CII of 2010 and F.A.O. No.271 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:13.10.2011 Smt. Rani and others .....Appellants v. Mohinder Singh and another .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Pankaj Dhaka, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate and Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. CM No.1652 -CII of 2010: For the reasons stated in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1652-CII of 2010, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 67 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned. F.A.O. No.271 of 2010: Appellants-claimants Rani, Monika, Umed Singh and Sapna in this appeal have prayed for increase of compensation of `5,43,600/- along F.A.O. No.271 of 2010 [2] with interest awarded by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Circle -II, Panipat (hereinafter referred to as `the Commissioner'). It has further been ordered that the amount of compensation shall be paid within one month from the receipt of the order and if the amount is not paid within the stipulated period the claimants will be further entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Appellant Rani is the widow of Phool Singh alias Kala, appellants Monika and Sapna are the minor daughters of Phool Singh and Umed Singh is the minor son of Phool Singh. Phool Singh was employed as a driver on Eicher Canter bearing registration No.HR-67-1240 with Mohinder Singh (respondent No.1). Mohinder Singh, in his written statement before the Commissioner, admitted that Phool Singh was in his employment as Driver on the said Canter. Phool Singh, while driving the said Canter on 12.5.2005 at about 1.00/1.30 a.m. met with an accident near Kikar Turn, Fatehabad. Due to the accident, Phool Singh sustained multiple grievous injuries and he succumbed to the injuries at the spot. At the time of death, Phool Singh was aged about 32/33 years and his wages were taken to be `4,000/- per month by the Commissioner. On the claim petition filed by the appellants, the Commissioner awarded the compensation as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of `4,43,600/- which is on lesser side, however, a perusal of the award shows that an award of `5,43,600/- has been passed in favour of the LRs of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased was working as Driver with respondent No.1 for the last one year and was F.A.O. No.271 of 2010 [3] getting wages at the rate of `5,000/- per month. However, at the time of awarding compensation the monthly wages had been taken as `4,000/- per month which was against the facts. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No.1 has submitted that the award of the Commissioner is valid and legal and no reason is called for to interfere in this regard. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of both the sides. The Commissioner has taken the income of the deceased at the rate of `4,000/- per month and accordingly awarded `5,43,600/-. Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 deals with the amount of compensation payable to the dependents of the deceased. Section 4 (1) (a) and (b) along with Explanations I and II reads as under:- “4. Amount of compensation.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:- (a) Where death results an amount equal to fifty per from the injury cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of eight thousand rupees, whichever is more; (b) Where permanent total an amount equal to sixty per F.A.O. No.271 of 2010 [4] disablement results from the cent of the monthly wages of injury the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor, or an amount of ninety thousand rupees, whichever is more. Explanation I.- For the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b), “relevant factor”, in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due. Explanation II.- Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed four thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be four thousand rupees only;” A perusal of the above referred provision leaves no doubt that even if the workman was drawing more than `4,000/- at the at time of accident, the income to be taken for the purpose of calculation is `4,000/-. In total an amount of `5,43,600/- has been awarded which appears to be fair and legal in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, no interference is called for. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed. F.A.O. No.271 of 2010 [5] October 13 , 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*