Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1099 (GAU)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sabitri Das

2019-09-25

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard, Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. The order dated 11.06.2013 shows that notice upon the respondent workman has been accepted after being served through the substituted manner of publication in a newspaper. In spite of it, none appears. In the circumstance, we have no other option but to proceed in the matter in the absence of the respondent. 2. The husband of the claimant respondent No.1 was employed as a driver in the vehicle No.AS-01-Q-9006. While on duty on 01.05.2005 at about 4.30 pm when the vehicle was coming from Nalbari towards Guwahati it met with an accident, and as a result, the husband of the claimant sustained severe injuries, because of which he died. 3. Before the Commissioner, the claimant respondent No.1 led the evidence that her husband Pradip Das was employed as a driver in the vehicle No.AS-01-Q-9006 and he died in an accident that took place on 01.05.2005 while on duty. In the proceeding, the owner of the vehicle filed a written statement admitting that the husband of the claimant respondent No.1 was under his employment and further that the workman was paid Rs.100/- as daily wages and Rs.20/- as daily allowance which came to Rs.3600/- per month. On the basis of such evidence, by the judgment dated 14.06.2006, a compensation of Rs.3,84,426/- was awarded in favour of the claimant respondent No.1. 4. By the award, it was further provided that an interest of 6% would also be payable from the date of accident till date of deposit if the awarded amount was not deposited within 30 days. Before the appeal was preferred against the judgment dated 14.06.2006, the Insurance Company had deposited the entire amount of Rs.3,84,426/- and as per the records, the said amount was withdrawn by the claimant respondent No.1. Be that as it may, the ground taken in this appeal is that the daily allowance paid to the deceased workman amounting to Rs.20/- per day could not have been included as a wage earned by the workman. To substantiate his stand, Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel relies upon the definition of wages as provided in Section 2(m) of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923. We also take note of that the same stand was also taken by the Insurance Company before the Commissioner but due consideration was not given to the stand. To substantiate his stand, Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel relies upon the definition of wages as provided in Section 2(m) of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923. We also take note of that the same stand was also taken by the Insurance Company before the Commissioner but due consideration was not given to the stand. We are of the view that as the stand was based on the interpretation of the definition of wages as provided under Section 2(m), it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to atleast give a consideration to it. As the consideration was not given, we are of the view that there was an infirmity in the judgment dated 14.06.2006. In the circumstance, there would be a requirement to remand the matter back to the Commissioner for a fresh adjudication. But as we have already taken note of that the entire awarded amount had been withdrawn and taken away by the claimant respondent No.1 and further had also failed to appear before this Court, it would be futile to remand the matter back to the Commissioner in the present circumstance. Accordingly, without interfering with the award of compensation amounting to Rs.3,84,426/- we provide that the interest component provided in the award be no longer required to be paid, more so, as it is stated that the amount was deposited within time. In terms of the above, the appeal stands disposed of.