SHANTILATA SETHY AND ANOTHER versus M/S DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANR.

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 11-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145
SHANTILATA SETHY AND ANOTHER
v.
M/S DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA
INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7657-7658 of 2021)
DECEMBER 11, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923: s.4 – Victim-deceased
was working as a helper in a truck belonging to second respondent-
employer – On the fateful day, while helper was making
arrangements for loading of rice bags, the driver of the truck
allegedly lost control of truck and dashed into the helper who struck
against a tree on the side of road – He succumbed to his injuries
next day – Parents of the deceased filed claim petition under the
1923 Act – Deceased was 24 years old at the time of accident and
was receiving a salary of Rs. 2400 per month and Rs. 25/- everyday
toward food expenses – Commissioner held that in terms of s.4 of
the Act, where the death of a workman results from an injury,
compensation shall be an amount equal to fifty percent of the
monthly wages of the deceased multiplied by the relevant factor –
The relevant factor for 24 years being 218.47, Commissioner
determined compensation at Rs.2.64 lacs – First respondent was
directed to pay compensation along with interest at 12% p.a. from
the date of accident till realization – High Court modified the award
by reducing the compensation to Rs.1.98 lacs – High Court
proceeded on the basis that there was no material on the record to
indicate that the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of death
was Rs.2,400 – High Court consequently proceeded on the basis of
a minimum wage of Rs.910, to which a multiplier of 218.47 was
applied resulting in a recomputed compensation of Rs 1.98 lacs –
On the point of interest, High Court held that there was no provision
in the Act to grant interest on the compensation from the date of the
accident – Subsequently, the payment of interest was reduced from
12% to 8% from the date of award till realization – Instant appeal
filed by parents of deceased – Held: The claim was not disputed by
[2021] 12 S.C.R. 145
145
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
the employer – There was absolutely no basis for the High Court to
reduce the award on the ground that there was no material to
establish the salary that the deceased was earning at the time of the
accident – There was no justification for the insurer to take a matter
involving such a paltry sum of compensation based on the facts of
the case to the High Court and to allow a poor farmer and his wife
who have already lost the solace of an earning member of the family
into a long drawn out litigation – Rs.25 that was paid by as food
expense by the employer would fall within the ‘special expenses
that he is entitled to by the nature of his employment’ which is
specifically excluded by the provision – Therefore, the total
compensation to be paid is as follows: (50% of 2400) x 218.47=
Rs. 2,62,164 – First respondent is directed to pay said amount along
with an interest of 12% from the date of accident till it is realised –
In addition, the appellants shall be entitled to costs quantified at Rs
1 lakh towards for meeting their costs and expenses of the
proceedings which have been conducted in the courts below.
Disposing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Families of the victims of motor accidents cannot
realize rights under law so long as litigation continues to be a
stratagem and source of harassment and torture. In the present
case, the claim was on the basis that the deceased was earning
an amount of Rs 2,400 per month. The claim was not disputed by
the employer. There was absolutely no basis for the High Court
to reduce the award on the ground that there was no material to
establish the salary that the deceased was earning at the time of
the accident. There was no ground to proceed on the basis of the
minimum wage, particularly when there was nothing untoward or
exaggerated in the claim for compensation based on the salary
which was earned by the deceased. The second respondent has
in his written statement and affidavit, stated that the deceased
helper was receiving a salary of Rs 2400/month. This statement
has not been discredited. The deceased was an informal worker,
who was working as a helper in a transport business under the
second respondent, earning a meagre wage of Rs. 2400 at the
time of the accident. Such employees are not provided receipts
on the payment of wages, nor can it be reasonably assumed that
A
B
C
D
E
F

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.