MAMTA DEVI & ORS. versus THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1133, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1133
MAMTA DEVI & ORS.
v.
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
& ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3904 of 2023)
MAY 19, 2023
[J. K. MAHESHWARI AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – s.20 – Notification
issued under – “Contested claim” – When not – Deceased who was
employed by the second respondent as truck driver met with a road
accident and succumbed to the injuries – Compensation sought by
appellants-his wife, son and parents – Deputy Labour Commissioner-
cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation awarded
Rs.4,31,671/- and with interest @ 6% p.a – Challenged by appellants
– High Court held that the award itself was without jurisdiction on
the ground that it was a contested matter on account of the written
statement filed by the insurer and there being a embargo as per
notification issued u/s. 20(1) & (2) – Held: Employer had clearly
admitted the averments made in the claim petition filed by the
appellants – There was no contest– Insurer of the offending vehicle-
first respondent having filed the written statement did not cross
examine the appellants and their witnesses – Thus, the claim lodged
by them seeking compensation would not partake the character of
a “contested claim” as stipulated under the notification issued by
the appropriate Govt. u/s.20 (1) and (2), where under clause (a),
the presiding officers of the Labour Court were entrusted with
adjudication of claims of all contested cases arising under the Act
– Therefore, the High
Court erred in holding that the claim petition
was not maintainable before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-
Commissioner and appellants had to pursue their grievance before
the jurisdictional Labour Court – Impugned judgment set aside –
Further, unchallenged statement of the wife of the deceased that he
was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, accepted – Appellants entitled
to compensation of Rs.6,64,110/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from
one month from the date of accident till date of payment excluding
the amount already paid/deposited by the first respondent –
Compensation – Maxims – Coram-non-judice.
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1133 : 2023 INSC 566
1133
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3904
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in MA No. 777 of 2014.
Harsh Parashar, Adv. for the Appellants.
Ms. Sakshi Mittal, Vishnu Mehra, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
Leave granted.
1. A challenge is laid to the correctness and legality of the judgment
dated 01.10.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 777 of 2014 by
the High Court of Judicature at Patna, whereunder, the appeal filed by
the claimants assailing the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the Deputy
Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation,
in CWC No. 24 of 2011 allowing the claim petition in part, directing the
opposite party No. 1 - Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
(first respondent herein) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,31,671/
- has been set aside, on the ground that the dispute raised was a contested
case and it is coram-non-judice.
2. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Atil Inam, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, as also Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No. 1, and perused the case papers.
3. Appellants/Claimants are wife, son and parents of late Sri
Vakil Choudhary who had been employed by the second respondent as
truck driver and had met with a road accident in the night of 21.04.2011
at 10.30 p.m. and as a
result of the accidental injuries sustained,
succumbed to the same. Hence, seeking compensation on account of
death occurring during the course of employment and contending inter
alia that he used to earn Rs.6,000/- p.m. as wages from his employer,
claim petition was lodged before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-
cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. On notice being
issued, the insurer of the offending vehicle appeared and filed written
statement but, thereafter, the matter was not pursued further by the
respondents. On the basis of the material evidence that came to be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1135
placed by the claimants, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation adjudicated the claim and
awarded a sum of Rs.4,31,671/- and ordered for payment of interest
@ 6 per cent per annum from the date of the accident till the amount
is deposited. To award said compensation, Tribunal considered the
income of the deceased at Rs.150/- per day and computed the total
monthly income for 26 working days at Rs.3,900/- p.m. and half of the
same, at Rs.1,950/- as loss of income to the claimants and adopting
the relevant multiplier/factor as stipulated under the The Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923)(hereinafter referred to as ‘W.C.
Act’ for brevity) at 221.37, determined the total compensation
accordingly.
4. This Award was challenged by the claimants as being abysmally
on the lower side has resulted in a worsened scenario viz., the Award
itself was held to be one without jurisdiction viz., Deputy Labour
Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation had no
jurisdiction on the premise that it was a contested matter on account of
the written statement having been filed by the insurer and there being a
embargo as per notification issued under Section 20(1) and (2) of the
W.C. Act.
5. By virtue of the power vested under sub-Section (1) and (2) of
Section 20 of the Act, the appropriate Government had issued notification
whereunder under clause (a), the presiding officers of the Labour Court
were entrusted with
adjudication of claims of all contested cases arising
under the Act.
6. As could be seen from the impugned order, the only reasoning
adopted for arriving at a conclusion that the Deputy Labour
Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation
Commissioner had no jurisdiction or the fact which weighed in the mind
of the High Court to non-suit the claim was on account of the written
statement having been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who
were also respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation.
7. The records on hand would disclose that there was no further
contest of the claim petition by them. On the other hand, the employer
had clearly admitted the averments made in the claim petition filed by
the claimants. In other words, there was no contest. The insurer of the
MAMTA DEVI & ORS. v. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
offending vehicle having filed the written statement seems to have not
cross examined the claimants and their witnesses. Thus, the claim lodged
by the claimants seeking for compensation would not partake the
character of a “contested claim” as stipulated under the notification
issued by the appropriate Government under Section 20 (1) and (2) of
the W.C. Act. On this count itself, it has to be held that High Court fell in
error in arriving at a conclusion that claim petition was not maintainable
before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for
Workmen Compensation and claimants had to pursue their grievance
before the jurisdictional Labour Court.
8. In the normal course, we would have remitted the matter back
to the High Court for adjudicating the appeal on merits. However, we
desist from doing so for the simple reason that the first claimant being a
widow, the second claimant being the son and the third and the fourth
claimants being the parents of the deceased are still awaiting for a
reasonable compensation to be awarded.
9. Hence, we have heard the learned Advocates appearing for
the parties on the issue of quantum of just compensation which requires
to be awarded to the claimants.
10. At this juncture itself, it would be apt and appropriate to note
that the insurer viz., the first respondent herein pursuant to the Award
passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for
Workmen Compensation
has deposited the award amount as submitted
before this Court by the learned counsel. The insurer also did not assail
the Award passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation dated 10.10.2014. In other
words, it accepted its liability and is stated to have satisfied the Award
passed. When this being the factual position, we would have to
necessarily examine as to whether compensation awarded in favour of
claimants is in terms of the statutory mandate.
11. Having regard to the object of the Act which envisages
dispensation of social justice, we are of the considered view that the
Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation fell in error in arriving at a conclusion that claimants’
income is to be construed at Rs.3,900/- p.m. or the minimum wage to be
computed should be at Rs.150/- per day in the absence of any proof of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1137
income. The written statement filed by the employer would be a complete
answer to this, inasmuch as it is categorically admitted by the employer
that deceased was drawing Rs.6,000/- per month as wages. The deceased
was a truck driver and had four mouths to feed at the time of his demise
in the year 2011. By no stretch of imagination, it can be construed that
income which he was earning as claimed by his wife in her statement
made on oath can be construed as excessive or not commensurate with
the wages earned by a truck driver in the year 2011.
12. Thus, the irresistible conclusion which we have to draw is, the
unchallenged statement of the wife of the deceased who had deposed
that her husband was earning Rs.6,000/- per month deserves to be
accepted as gospel truth. We see no reason for disbelieving her statement.
13. In the light of the aforestated discussion, the quantification of
the compensation will have to be redetermined by construing the income
of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and after deducting 50 per cent of the
same loss of income to the claimants will have to be held at Rs.3,000/-
per month and adopting the appropriate factor having regard to the fact
that the deceased was 22 years at the time of his accidental death, the
appropriate multiplier would be 221.37. Thus, the compensation that the
claimants would be entitled to would be Rs.3,000 X 221.37 which is
equal to Rs.6,64,110/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand One
Hundred and Ten only).
14. The mandate of the Act insofar as payment of interest is
concerned is clear and unambiguous viz., the claimants would be entitled
to interest @ 12 per cent per annum from one month after the date of
accident till date of payment. Thus, claimants would be entitled to the
interest accordingly, excluding the amount which is said to have been
paid or deposited by the first respondent-insurer.
15. For the reasons aforestated, we allow this appeal in part and
set aside the impugned judgment dated 01.10.2018 passed in
Miscellaneous Application No. 777 of 2014 by the High Court of Judicature
at Patna and award a compensation of Rs.6,64,110/-(Rupees Six Lakhs
Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred and Ten only) with interest @ 12%
p.a. from one month from the date of accident till date of payment
excluding the amount already paid or deposited by the first respondent-
insurer.
MAMTA DEVI & ORS. v. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. [ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
16. The balance amount shall be deposited by the first respondent-
insurer before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for
Workmen Compensation, Magadh Division, Gaya, in C.W.C. Case No.24
of 2011 expeditiously and at any rate, within six weeks from the date of
receipt of the copy of this order.
17. Costs made easy.
Divya Pandey
Appeal partly allowed.
(Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)