JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Suman Shyam, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 as well as Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. 2. The judgment and order dated 15.03.2008 passed by the Commissioner of the Workmen's Compensation, Cachar, Silchar, passed in WC Case No.10 of 2005, whereby, an amount of Rs.3,96,620/- has been awarded as compensation together with an amount of Rs.2,500/- as funeral cost on account of death of the husband of the claimant No.1, namely, Nazim Uddin Barbhuiya, is under challenge in the present appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 3. The deceased Nazim Uddin Barbhuiya, aged about 35 years, was killed in an incident that had occurred on 04.01.2004 due to a motor vehicle accident that had taken place in course of his employment as a driver of the truck bearing Registration No. AS-11A/4594. 4. The deceased being the workman within the definition of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, his dependants had approached the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Cachar, by filing a claim petition seeking compensation. The vehicle involved in the incident was covered by an Insurance Policy issued by the appellant herein. On consideration of the materials available on record, the learned Commissioner was of the view that the deceased was entitled to compensation and accordingly, awarded a sum of Rs.3,96,620/- as compensation together with the additional amount of Rs.2,500/- as funeral expenses. 5. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that although this appeal has been preferred on numerous grounds, yet, the appellant is pressing the appeal on the sole ground that the learned Commissioner ought to have deducted the amount of Rs.70/- per day paid to the deceased as meal allowance, as the same was a special allowance paid by the employer. 6. By referring to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Lakhimai Das and Another reported in 2006 (3) GLT 870, Mr. 6. By referring to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Lakhimai Das and Another reported in 2006 (3) GLT 870, Mr. Goswami submits that the law has been settled in the aforesaid decision that under the provision of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the special allowance paid by the employer to the workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by nature of employment cannot be included in the daily wages for the purpose of computation of the amount of compensation. By drawing the attention of this Court to the decision of Mohd. Ameeruddin v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd reported in (2011) 1 SCC 304 , Mr. Goswami further submits that although in the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the daily allowance would form a part of the wages, yet, according to the learned counsel, the decision in the case of Mohd. Ameeruddin (Supra) was rendered under the provision of Motors Vehicle Act, 1988 and hence, the same would not have any application in the facts of the present case. Mr. Goswami further submits that the meal allowance was paid to the deceased workman to meet his special expenses as a driver and hence, the said amount would not be covered under the definition of wages. 7. By referring to another decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd, v. Habibur Rahman (Md.) and Another reported in 2013 (2) GLT 962 , wherein this Court had the occasion to deal with an issue of similar nature, Mr. Goswami submits that the law laid down by the learned Single Judge in the aforementioned case would also not be applicable to the facts of this case as it was a case of payment of daily allowance, whereas in the present case it is about meal allowance. On the basis of the aforesaid argument, Mr. Goswami has prayed for deduction of the amount of Rs.70/- per day as claimed by the claimant while computing the wages and thereby, reduce the monthly wage of the deceased from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.3,000/- and recalculate/ compute the amount of compensation afresh. 8. Resisting the argument made on behalf of the appellant, Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 8. Resisting the argument made on behalf of the appellant, Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6, submits that the case of the respondent is squarely covered under the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as rendered in the case of Mohd. Ameeruddin (Supra) as well as in the case of United India insurance Company Ltd. v. Habibur Rahman (Supra) and therefore, the ground urged by the appellant is wholly without any merit. 9. I have also heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7. 10. The expression "Wages" has been defined under Section 2(m) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "(m) 'wages' 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;" 11. In Paragraph-2 of the claim petition, it has been mentioned that the deceased used to receive monthly wages of Rs.3,000/- (fixed) besides Rs.70/- per day as meal charges, totalling Rs.5,100/- per month from the employer. The correctness of the said statement has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant but the stand of the appellant is that Rs.70/- being meal charges, stood excluded from the component of wages by virtue of the provision of Section 2(m) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 12. A perusal of the materials available on record goes to show that the deceased was employed as a driver and the amount of Rs.70/- was paid to him by his employer for meal allowance. It is also noticed that the amount of Rs.70/-was paid to the deceased for each day of the month, regardless of the fact whether the deceased was on actual duty or not. From the aforesaid factual position it is evident that the amount of Rs.70/- was not given to the workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of employment but the said amount was given as daily allowance in addition to the amount of Rs.3,000/- as salary. 13. In the case of Mohd. From the aforesaid factual position it is evident that the amount of Rs.70/- was not given to the workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of employment but the said amount was given as daily allowance in addition to the amount of Rs.3,000/- as salary. 13. In the case of Mohd. Ameeruddin (Supra), the Hon'bel Supreme Court has made the following observations: "3. The Tribunal found that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tanker. It further found that at the time of death Aslamuddin was aged 20 years. He was getting a salary of Rs.2500/- per month besides "batta" (daily allowance) at the rate of Rs.50/-. His monthly earning, thus, came to Rs.4000/- that is to say Rs.48,000/- per annum. After deducting ?rd amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, his net contribution to the claimants was held to be Rs.32,000/- per annum." 14. By following the decision in the case of Mohd. Ameeruddin (Supra), this Court while interpreting the provision of Section 2(m) of the Act, 1923, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Habibur Rahman (Supra) has held as follow: "In the case in hand also there is no evidence that the daily allowance as was being given to the workman was not given on everyday of the month or he was not working on everyday of the month. Therefore, in conjoint reading of Section 2(m) as excerpted with Mohd. Ameeruddin (Supra), it would be crystal clear that the wages would include the daily allowance unless it is demonstrated that the said allowance is a part of a sum paid to a workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment." 15. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lakhimai Das (Supra) the Division Bench had arrived at a finding that the amount of Rs.20/- paid to the deceased workman was on account of special expenses that was required to be met by the deceased in course of his employment and therefore, the same stood excluded from the purpose of computing the compensation from the death of the deceased. However, as has been noted hereinabove, the amount of Rs.70/- paid to the deceased /workman in the present case cannot be said to have been paid so as to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of employment but, the same was a daily allowance for all intent and purpose. Therefore, the meal allowance of Rs.70/- would form a part of his wage within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Act of 1923. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakhimai Das (Supra) would not have any application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the contrary, the ratio of the decision of the Hon'bel Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ameeruddin (Supra) and that of the learned Single Judge in the case of the United Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) would be squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Any amount, which does not fit into the definition of concession or contribution paid by the employer towards travel allowance or the value of travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer to a workman in any pension or provident fund or sum paid to cover special expenses entailed on the workman by nature of employment, would form part of his wages and would be liable to be treated as such. 16. In view of what has been discussed herein above, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to cost. The balance amount under the award be deposited with the Registry of this Court within 60 days from today where after the claimant would be at liberty to move the Registry for withdrawal of the same upon furnishing proper proof of identity to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial).