Judgment :- 1. The appellant's son, Joseph was a conductor in the bus, KLK.1931 belonging to the Kuroor Motor Service, Kothamangalam, represented by the first opposite party. The bus met with an accident on 12-6-1965 as a result of which Joseph sustained injuries and died on 14-6-1965. The appellant filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming Rs. 7,000/- by way of compensation alleging that the monthly wages of the deceased amounted to Rs. 120/-. The second opposite party was the State Insurance Officer, Trivandrum. 2. The first opposite party contended that deceased was not an employee of the Kuroor Motor Service on the relevant date and also that the transfer of registration of the bus, KLK.1931 in favour of the Kuroor Motor Service was effected only on 1-3-1966 after the date of the accident. The State Insurance Officer admitted that the driver and the conductor of the bus were covered by the policy of insurance, but contended that the deceased was only a Checker and as such not covered by the policy of insurance. Pending enquiry before the Commissioner, the first opposite party, the original proprietor of the Kuroor Motor Service died. Opposite parties Nos. 3 to 20 were impleaded as persons representing the Kuroor Motor Service. They put forward identical contentions as the original opposite party No. 1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that the deceased was an employee of the Kuroor Motor Service, that the bus, KLK.1931 was owned by the Kuroor Motor Service, that Joseph died of injuries caused in the course of his employment and that opposite parties Nos. 3 to 20 were liable to pay compensation to the appellant. The case of the appellant that the deceased was being paid at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month and a daily batta of Rs 3/- was accepted; but in calculating the compensation the daily batta was excluded and compensation was fixed at Rs. 1800/- treating the monthly wages as Rs. 30/-. In other words the daily batta was not treated as part of the wages of the deceased. The liability of the State Insurance Officer was also found against. 3. In the present appeal, the appellant claims that he should have been allowed compensation treating the wages of the deceased as Rs. 120/- inclusive of daily batta and that he is. therefore, entitled to Rs. 7000/- by way of compensation. The liability of the State Insurance Officer was also found against. 3. In the present appeal, the appellant claims that he should have been allowed compensation treating the wages of the deceased as Rs. 120/- inclusive of daily batta and that he is. therefore, entitled to Rs. 7000/- by way of compensation. It is also contended that the State Insurance Officer should have been made liable for the amount of compensation decreed in his favour. 4. As regards the second contention, the Commissioner has not given sufficient reasons for disallowing the claim against the State Insurance Officer. It is the admitted case that the policy of insurance covers both the driver and the conductor. Although the State Insurance Officer mentioned in the objections that the deceased was a checker and not the conductor, no evidence was let in to prove that case. The evidence of pws.1 to 3 on the side of the appellant clearly makes out that the deceased was the conductor of the bus. The Commissioner did not touch upon this evidence but merely stated that "the liability of the State Insurance Department to pay compensation has not been proved". In fact the counsel appearing for the State Insurance was not in a position to support the finding. The finding is not sustainable and is set aside. We hold that the liability of the Insurance Department is established on evidence. 5. It is admitted that compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is to be fixed on the basis of the monthly wages payable to the deceased. The dispute is whether the daily batta forms part of the wages. 6. The term "wages" as defined in S.2 (1) (m) of the Workmen's Compensation Act includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than a travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a workman towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to a workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment. There is no case for the respondents that the daily batta of Rs. 3/-was being paid by way of travelling allowance or travelling concession or that it was paid to cover any special expenses entailed on the deceased by the nature of his employment. There is no case for the respondents that the daily batta of Rs. 3/-was being paid by way of travelling allowance or travelling concession or that it was paid to cover any special expenses entailed on the deceased by the nature of his employment. It would appear from the evidence that the remuneration for the work of the deceased employee was so fixed, that a portion of it was to be paid on a monthly basis and the other portion was to be paid daily, probably to facilitate the employee to meet his daily needs. That a part of the remuneration due to a worker was being paid daily and the remaining on monthly basis will not make either of the payments any-the-less wages so long as it is a benefit capable of being estimated in money. The question in each case is whether the workman concerned can claim the amount as of right for the services rendered by him. If he can do so and if it does not fall under the excluded category mentioned in S.2 (1) (m), there is no scope for dispute that it is wages which should be taken into account in deciding the quantum of compensation due to the workman. 7. Judicial precedents are not wanting on the point involved. In Smt. K. A. Ibrahim Tai v. N. T. Company ((1973) I LLJ. 447), a salesman of the National Tobacco Company of India died. There was dispute regarding the quantum of the compensation due to his legal heirs under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It came out that the deceased was being paid daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 3/50 over and above the monthly wages and dearness allowances He was also entitled to travel in the third class. The question arose as to whether Rs. 3/50 paid daily could be taken into account for fixing compensation. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that the said daily allowance would not assume the character of travelling allowance and, therefore, would be other benefit capable of being estimated in money and therefore wages for the purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 8. 3/50 paid daily could be taken into account for fixing compensation. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that the said daily allowance would not assume the character of travelling allowance and, therefore, would be other benefit capable of being estimated in money and therefore wages for the purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 8. In Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Bone Jan ( (1971) 1 Mysore Law Journal 299) out station allowance and overtime allowance were held to be within the definition of 'wages' under S.2 (1) (m) and were, therefore, liable to be included in the computation of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 9. In Godavari Sugar Mills v. Shakuntala (AIR. 1948 Bombay 158), the worker was being paid Rs. 25/- per month He used to get Rs. 10/-as dearness allowance He was given free quarters and free water within the company's factory. These amenities were valued at Rs. 10/-. It was contended that the dearness allowance and the value of amenities ought not to be included in grossing up the actual cash wages paid to the workman for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. A Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay overruled the contention and held that the amenities were continuous in nature and directly came under privilege and benefits included in the definition of 'wages' in S.2 (1) (m). 10. On a parity of reasoning, the daily batta that was being received by the deceased should be considered to be part of the wages for the purpose of assessing the compensation due to the appellant under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 11. It is also pertinent to note that a conductor in a bus being an employee in a public motor transport is included in Schedule II of the Minimum Wages Act, a conductor is to receive wages at not less than Rs. 70/- per month. In the case of the deceased, this could have been made up only if the daily batta was also included. 12. There is therefore, no reason for excluding the daily batta from the wages of the deceased. If that be so, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 7,000/- and not Rs. 1,800/- as is allowed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. 12. There is therefore, no reason for excluding the daily batta from the wages of the deceased. If that be so, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 7,000/- and not Rs. 1,800/- as is allowed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Though a claim for interest was put forward at the time of hearing, it is not seen raised either before the Commissioner or the appeal memo. Hence it is disallowed. The liability of the State Insurance Officer will be limited to the amount covered by the Insurance policy. The appeal is allowed as above. Allowed.