IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.10.2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.479 of 2000 ............ P. Loganathan .. Appellant/ Petitioner Vs. 1. Jeyalakshmi Easrth Mover's, 8/17 Square Market, Mettur Dam, Mettur Taluk, Salem District. 2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Square Market, Mettur Dam, Salem District. .. Respondent/ Opposite Parties Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order dated 23.11.1999 made in W.C.No. 147 of 1999 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour , Salem. For Appellant : Mr. S. Uthirasamy For Respondents : Mr. S. Arunkumar – R2 R1- given up -------- JUDGMENT The injured claimant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 23.11.1999 made in W.C.No. 147 of 1999 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, and seeking enhancement. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The appellant is a Poclain operator working under the first respondent. On 6.10.1996 at 5.00 p.m., while fitting a bucket to the poclain, the accident happened. In that accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries to the right hand. He was taken to hospital and due to the serious nature of injuries, the appellant's right hand below elbow was amputated. Stating that the accident happened in the course of employment, a claim was made for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. The appellant claimed that his income was Rs.5,000/- p.m. at the time of accident. 3. Before the Commissioner of Labour, the appellant was examined as PW.1. The following documents were marked:- Ex.A1 is the F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the discharge summary. Ex.A3 is the disability certificate assessing the disability at 60%. Ex.A4 is the photocopy of the insurance policy. Ex.A5 is the school transfer certificate. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the respondents. 4. The fact that the accident was happened in the course employment and the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation to the claimant is not disputed. 5. As regards the compensation, the same was decided by the Commissioner in answer to issue No.3 in paragraphs 15 to 20 of the award. The age of the injured worker was taken as 23 years based on Ex.A5. As regards the income, no document was filed. Therefore, the Commissioner relied on G.O.Ms.No.625, dated 25.5.1995 and fixed the income at Rs.1,677/- for the purpose of determining the compensation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). The disability has also been fixed as 60%. As per schedule I, Part-II of the Act, the compensation was determined based on the relevant factor, and a sum of Rs.1,32,788/- was awarded as compensation . This amount has been deposited by the respondents. 6. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation primarily on the ground that batta paid should be included as part of the wages and the income should be taken as Rs.5,000/-p.m. as claimed as the respondents have not disputed the same by producing the documents to show the actual wages paid. On this premise, this appeal has been filed. 7. Notice of motion was ordered by this Court on 22.3.2000. No question of law was framed. The questions of law for consideration in this case are as follows:- (i) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Compensation is right in determining the income in terms of the G.O. issued for fixing the minimum wages in the absence of specific material to show the actual income of the claimant? and (ii) Whether the batta will form part of the income? 8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that neither the appellant nor the respondents have produced documentary evidence to show the income of the claimant. He, therefore, submitted that Commissioner was right in placing reliance upon the G.O. issued by the Government fixing the minimum wages for the purpose of determining the wages of the injured claimant in this case. He relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Tmt. Chandra and Another – Vs. - M/s. Loganathan Electricals, rep. by its Sole Proprietor, N. Shanmugam and Others 2004 (1) TNMAC 66 (DB) which was followed by a Single Judge of this Court in CMA No. 986 of 2000, dated 29.6.2007. 9. On going through the oral and documentary evidence on record, neither the appellant nor the respondents have filed any document before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to show the income of the injured claimant/ appellant. In such view of the matter, the Commissioner was justified in determining the actual income based on the G.O. issued by the Government fixing the minimum wages. The Division Bench cited above has also enhanced the income of the injured claimant in that case based on the G.O. issued under the Minimum Wages Act. 10. In this case also, merely on the oral plea of the appellant, the income cannot be fixed. Therefore, when the law provides certain guidelines regarding wages that should be paid to a particular class of workers, the same will be a safe method to determine the income of the worker. In the absence of evidence to prove higher income, the Commissioner is bound to determine the income in terms of G.O. and he cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, the first question of law is answered. 11. As far as the next issue is concerned, though the plea has been raised by the appellant that batta should be included as part of wages, no evidence was let in to show whether batta was in fact paid to the injured claimant or it has been added in his wages. In any event, in the calculation made by the Commissioner, the batta was included. In such view of the matter, the second question does not require consideration. 12. Since the Commissioner was proceeded on the basis of the Government Order to fix the income and determined the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compensation in terms of Section 4 (1)(b) of the Act relying upon the schedule and the appropriate entry, the compensation granted by the Commissioner is upheld. No good ground has been made out to interfere with the same and to enhance the compensation. 13. Finding no merits, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour , Salem. +1cc to Mr.S.Arunkumar, Advocate Sr 59414 JSV (CO) km/16.12. CMA No. 479 of 2000 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/