JUDGMENT : Instant appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, amended upto date (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) lays challenge to order dated 29.01.2019, passed by learned Commissioner, for, Employees Compensation, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. in Case No. 2/2 of 2014 CIS No.9/2014, whereby learned Commissioner below, while allowing the claim petition having been filed by appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) under Section 3 of the Act, held her entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,33,925/- along with simple interest @ 12% per annum, on account of death of workman Hem Raj, payable by respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Besides aforesaid amount of compensation, learned Commissioner below also held appellant entitled to sum of Rs.1,14,071/- on account of penalty and interest payable by respondent No.1, i.e. owner of vehicle bearing No.HP-01N-0237. 2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the appellant being dependent and legal heir of deceased Hem Raj, filed a petition under Section 3 of the Act, seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lac on account of death of aforesaid, Hem Raj, who was working as driver with respondent No.1 in his Trax Traveler No.HP-01N-0237. Appellant submitted in the claim petition that on 11.10.2014, the aforesaid Trax Traveler met with an accident at Bindla Khud, while carrying passengers from Timbi to Millah, as a consequence of which, deceased Hem Raj sustained head injuries on his person resulting into his death. Accident was reported to Police Station Shillai and thereafter FIR No.41/2014, dated 12.10.2014, under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC, was registered. Appellant Kamla Devi, who happens to be mother of the deceased, claiming herself fully dependent upon deceased Hem Raj, sought compensation from the respondents. She submitted that on the date of accident, age of deceased Hem Raj was 27 years and he was being paid salary to the tune of Rs.7500/- per month by the employer. She claimed that ill-fated vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident, but despite repeated requests, neither owner of the vehicle nor respondent/Insurance Company paid any claim and as such, she is entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lac. 3. Aforesaid claim of the petition came to be refuted by respondents. She claimed that ill-fated vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident, but despite repeated requests, neither owner of the vehicle nor respondent/Insurance Company paid any claim and as such, she is entitled to be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lac. 3. Aforesaid claim of the petition came to be refuted by respondents. Respondent No.1, claimed that compensation, if any, is to be paid by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company because at the time of alleged incident, vehicle in question was duly insured. Respondent No.1, specifically admitted that Hem Raj was experienced driver and he was also having a valid and effective driving licence.. While admitting that the deceased Hem Raj was working as a driver with vehicle bearing registration No.HP-01N- 0237, respondent No.1, denied that he was paying sum of Rs.7500/- per month to the deceased. He claimed that deceased was paid a salary of Rs.5000/- per month. This witness specifically admitted that deceased Hem Raj met with an accident and sustained injuries resulting into his death. 4. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company claimed that the deceased was not having any valid and effective driving licence. and the vehicle was being plied in violation of term and conditions of the policy and as such, it cannot be held liable to indemnify as insurer. Respondent No.2, also denied that decease Hem Raj was working as driver in Trax Traveler No.HP-01N-0237 owned by respondent No.1 and at that time, he was getting salary of Rs.75,00/- per month. Respondent No.2, specifically denied the relationship, if any, of employer and employee inter se deceased Hem Raj and respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, also claimed before court below that the claim petition has been filed by the appellant in collusion with respondent No.1 in order to grab undue compensation from respondent No.2. 5. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, learned court below framed following issues:- “1. Whether the death of late Hem Raj occurred out of and in the course of his employment of respondent No.1? OPP 2. Whether the deceased was drawing monthly wages of Rs.7500 and was 27 years of age at the time of his death?OPP 3. whether the death of deceased occurred due to his own negligence, as alleged?OPR-1 4. whether vehicle in question was being plied without valid and effective permit etc. ?OPR-2 5. Relief." 6. OPP 2. Whether the deceased was drawing monthly wages of Rs.7500 and was 27 years of age at the time of his death?OPP 3. whether the death of deceased occurred due to his own negligence, as alleged?OPR-1 4. whether vehicle in question was being plied without valid and effective permit etc. ?OPR-2 5. Relief." 6. Vide judgment dated 29.01.2019, court below held appellant entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,33,925/- along with interest @ 12% per annum, payable by respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Besides above, court below also saddled respondent No.1, with liability to pay sum of Rs.1.14.071/-, on account of penalty and interest. No appeal whatsoever has been filed by respondents laying challenge therein to aforesaid judgment passed by learned Commissioner below, but in the instant proceedings, it is the appellant, who has approached this Court for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by court below. 7. Though today, case at hand was taken for pre-admission hearing, but learned counsel representing the parties stated that the case may be heard and decided at admission stage only and as such, this Court after having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, framed following substantial question of law for determination :- “1 Whether the appellant-claimant is entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation in view of the amendment made in Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 which was made applicable w.e.f. 18.1.2010?” 8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the precise grouse of the appellant is that since vide Notification dated 31.05.2010 S.O. 1258(E), issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1b) of Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), the Central Government has specified Rs. 8,000/- as monthly wages for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 4, learned Commissioner below erred in considering the monthly income of he appellant as Rs.5000/- for the purpose of assessment of compensation. 8,000/- as monthly wages for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 4, learned Commissioner below erred in considering the monthly income of he appellant as Rs.5000/- for the purpose of assessment of compensation. While inviting attention of this Court to aforesaid Notification dated 31.05.2010, learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently argued that on the death of the employee, an amount equal to 50% of his monthly wages multiplied by relevant factor or Rs.1,20,000- (Rupees one lakh and twenty thousand), whichever is more, has to be awarded as compensation and for the purpose of computing such compensation, monthly wage of Rs.8000/- has to be considered and as such, learned Commissioner below, while computing compensation ought to have taken minimum wages of Rs.8000/- instead of Rs.5000/-. To substantiate his aforesaid submission, learned counsel representing the appellant has placed reliance upon judgment dated 14.08.2019, passed by this court in FAO(ECA) No. 355 of 2019, titled The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Govindi Devi & Others. 9. Mr. B.M. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel, representing the respondent/Insurance Company, while refuting the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant, submitted that there cannot be any quarrel with the fact that vide Notification dated 31.05.2010, Central Government has specified Rs.8000/- as monthly wages for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 4, but that doesn’t mean that in every case, wages of workman is required to be considered as Rs.8000/- for the purpose of sub-section(1) of Section 4 of the Act, rather by way of aforesaid Notification, Central Government has specified Rs.8000/- as monthly wages, which can be considered for the purpose of calculating amount of compensation. 10. Having carefully perused the judgment dated 14.08.2019, rendered by this Court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Govindi Devi & Others, this Court finds that the issue raised in the case at hand stands answered in the aforesaid judgment, wherein, this Court having carefully perused the provisions contained in Section 4 of Act. and Notification dated 31.05.2010, issued by Central Government, specifying therein Rs.8000/- as monthly wages for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 4, has held that prior to aforesaid amendment, the said wages were fixed at sum of Rs.4000/- and Explanation-II specifically restricted the amount to Rs.4000/- only, even if it exceeds said amount. and Notification dated 31.05.2010, issued by Central Government, specifying therein Rs.8000/- as monthly wages for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 4, has held that prior to aforesaid amendment, the said wages were fixed at sum of Rs.4000/- and Explanation-II specifically restricted the amount to Rs.4000/- only, even if it exceeds said amount. However, by virtue of Act No. 45 of 2009, restriction as referred to above came to be omitted and in its place, a sum of Rs.8000/- has been substituted by way of Notification supra. This Court further observed in the aforesaid judgment that no restriction has been attached or specified that if the monthly wages of the deceased employee exceeds Rs.8000/-, whether it should be considered at Rs.8000/- only and as such, there appears to be considerable force in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that since no restriction is imposed in case the monthly wages of the deceased employee exceeds Rs.8000/-, as such, liberal interpretation has to be made, especially when the Act in question is a beneficial legislation. It would be apt to take note of following paras of aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in Smt. Govindi Devi: “15. It would be apt to take note of following paras of aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in Smt. Govindi Devi: “15. Before exploring the answer to aforesaid question, it would be apt to take note of Section 4(1) of the Act, which reads as under :- “Section 4(1): Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:- (a) Where death results from the injury an amount equal to (fifty per cent) of the monthly wages of the deceased (employee) multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of eighty thousand rupees, whichever is more; (b) Where permanent total disablement results from the injury an amount equal to sixty per cent of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor, or an amount of ninety thousand rupees, whichever is more: (Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, enhance the amount of compensation mentioned in clauses (a) and (b).) Explanation I.- For the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) “relevant factor” in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the second column of the Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due. Explanation II.- Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed four thousand rupees, his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be four thousand rupees only.” 16. From the reading of the above, it is clear that the compensation for the death of the workman, is an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased or an amount of eighty thousand rupees, whichever is more. However, Explanation-II clearly specified and restricted that the monthly wages of a workman shall be deemed to be four thousand rupees only even if exceeds four thousand. 17. However, Explanation-II clearly specified and restricted that the monthly wages of a workman shall be deemed to be four thousand rupees only even if exceeds four thousand. 17. Subsequently, by Notification, dated 21.5.2010, by Act 45 of 2009, the above Section has been amended (w.e.f.18.1.2010) as follows: (a) Where death results from the injury an amount equal to (fifty per cent) of the monthly wages of the deceased (employee) multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of one lakh and twenty thousand rupees, whichever is more; (b) Where permanent total disablement results from the injury an amount equal to sixty per cent of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of one lakh and forty thousand rupees, whichever is more: Explanation I.- For the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) “relevant factor” in relation to a employee means the factor specified in the second column of the Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the employee on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due. Explanation II omitted by Act 45 of 2009, S.7 (w.e.f.18.1.2010)” 18. It is also not in dispute that vide Notification dated 31.05.2010 S.O.1258(E), in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1b) of Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), the Central Government has specified Rs.8,000/- as minimum wages for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 4. 19. From the bare perusal of aforesaid provisions of law as well as subsequent Notification dated 31.05.2010, it is explicit that for the death of the employee, an amount equal to 50% of his monthly wages multiplied by relevant factor or Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.one lakh and twenty thousand) whichever is more, has to be awarded towards compensation and for the purpose of computing such compensation, monthly wages at a sum of Rs.8,000/- has to be considered. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to aforesaid amendment, the said wages were fixed at a sum of Rs.4,000/- and Explanation-II specifically restricted the amount to be Rs.4,000/- only even if it exceeds. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to aforesaid amendment, the said wages were fixed at a sum of Rs.4,000/- and Explanation-II specifically restricted the amount to be Rs.4,000/- only even if it exceeds. However, by virtue of Act 45 of 2009, the restriction as referred above came to be omitted and in its place, a sum of Rs.8,000/- has been substituted by way of Notification taken note hereinabove. It is not in dispute that while amending the said clause, no restriction has been attached or specified that if the monthly wages of the deceased employee exceeds Rs.8,000/- whether it should be considered at Rs.8,000/- only and, as such, there appears to be considerable force in the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the claimants that since no restriction is imposed in case the monthly wages of the deceased employee exceeds to Rs.8,000/- liberal interpretation has to be made especially when the Act itself is a beneficial legislation. 20. At this stage it would be appropriate to refer para-4 of the “Statement of Objects and Reasons” mentioned in the Bill for amending the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (22nd December, 2009), as follows:- “Statement of Objects and Reasons:- 4. The Central Government has decided to introduce the Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 2009, on the lines of the Workmen’s Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 2008 introduced in the 14th Lok Sabha incorporating therein certain recommendation of the Standing Committee proposing to amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 which inter alia, makes provision,- (a) for amendment in long title and the provisions of the aforesaid Act so as to substitute “Workman” by the “employee”; (b) for enhancement of the minimum rates of compensation payable to a worker from eighty thousand rupees to one lakh twenty thousand rupees for death and from ninety thousand rupees to one lakh forty thousand rupees for permanent disability and to empower the Central Government to enhance the minimum rates of the said compensation from time to time. (c) to confer power upon the Central Government to specify the monthly wages in relation to an employee for the purpose of the aforesaid compensation.” 21. (c) to confer power upon the Central Government to specify the monthly wages in relation to an employee for the purpose of the aforesaid compensation.” 21. Bare perusal of aforesaid ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ suggests that the amendment came into force while empowering the Central Government to enhance the minimum rates of the said compensation from time to time as well as to specify the monthly wages in relation to an employee for the purpose of the aforesaid compensation, meaning thereby fixing the minimum wages by way of amendment at Rs.8000/- is only for the purpose of determining the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and there is scope of further enhancement from time to time. Although, the Act is a beneficial one and, thus, deserves liberal construction with a view to implement the legislative intent, but, it is trite that where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own and there is no vagueness or doubt therein, the court would not travel beyond the same and extend the scope of the statute. 22. In the case at hand, since the intent of the legislature is clear while amending the Act to enhance the minimum rates of the compensation from time to time as well as to specify the monthly wages in relation to an employee for the purpose of the said compensation, liberal interpretation beyond the prescription made in the Act, is not at all required. It is pertinent to note here that while amending the Act, the legislature has consciously in its wisdom, omitted the Explanation-II of Section 4-A of the Act only with a view to enhance the minimum rates of compensation. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 437 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “15. Where, however, the words were clear, there is no obscurity, there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to innovate or take upon itself the task of amending or altering the statutory provisions. In that situation the judges should not proclaim that they are playing the role of a lawmaker merely for an exhibition of judicial valour. In that situation the judges should not proclaim that they are playing the role of a lawmaker merely for an exhibition of judicial valour. They have to remember that there is a line, though thin, which separates adjudication from legislation. That line should not be crossed or erased. This can be vouchsafed by “an alert recognition of the necessity not to cross it and instinctive, as well as trained reluctance to do so”. (See Frankfurter : “Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes” in Essays on Jurisprudence, Columbia Law Review, p. 51.) 23. Reliance is also placed on State v. Parmeshwaran Subramani, (2009) 9 SCC 729 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “19. In a plethora of cases, it has been stated that where the language is clear, the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used. It is not the duty of the court either to enlarge the scope of legislation or the intention of the legislature, when the language of the provision is plain. The court cannot rewrite the legislation for the reason that it had no power to legislate. The court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there. The court cannot, on an assumption that there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, correct or make up assumed deficiency, when the words are clear and unambiguous. Courts have to decide what the law is and not what it should be. The courts adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature but cannot set at naught legislative judgment because such course would be subversive of constitutional harmony (see Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwa, 1992 supp.(1) SCC 323).” 24. Reliance is also placed upon the pronouncement of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Utkal Contractors and Joinery Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. State of Orissa & others, (1987) 3 SCC 279, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under: “9. ... ... ... A statute is best understood if we know the reason for it. The reason for a statute is the safest guide to its interpretation. The words of a statute take their colour from the reason for it. How do we discover the reason for a statute? There are external and internal aids. ... ... ... A statute is best understood if we know the reason for it. The reason for a statute is the safest guide to its interpretation. The words of a statute take their colour from the reason for it. How do we discover the reason for a statute? There are external and internal aids. The external aids are Statement of Objects and Reasons when the Bill is presented to Parliament, the reports of committees which preceded the Bill and the reports of Parliamentary Committees. Occasional excursions into the debates of Parliament are permitted. Internal aids are the preamble, the scheme and the provisions of the Act. Having discovered the reason for the statute and so having set the sail to the wind, the interpreter may proceed ahead. No provision in the statute and no word of the statute may be construed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally before any provision or word is attempted to be construed. The setting and the pattern are important. It is again important to remember that Parliament does not waste its breath unnecessarily. Just as Parliament is not expected to use unnecessary expressions, Parliament is also not expected to express itself unnecessarily. Even as Parliament does not use any word without meaning something, Parliament does not legislate where no legislation is called for. Parliament cannot be assumed to legislate for the sake of legislation; nor can it be assumed to make pointless legislation. Parliament does not indulge in legislation merely to state what it is unnecessary to state or to do what is already validly done. Parliament may not be assumed to legislate unnecessarily. Again, while the words of an enactment are important, the context is no less important. For instance : “...the fact that general words are used in a statute is not in itself a conclusive reason why every case falling literally within them should be governed by that statute, and the context of an Act may well indicate that wide or general words should be given a restrictive meaning”. 25. In The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and another versus Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC 965 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “5. .... Law is meant to serve the living and does not beat its abstract wings in the jural void. 25. In The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and another versus Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC 965 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “5. .... Law is meant to serve the living and does not beat its abstract wings in the jural void. Its functional fulfillment as social engineering depends on its sensitized response to situation, subject-matter and the complex of realities which require ordered control. A holistic understanding is simple justice to the meaning of all legislations. Fragmentary grasp of rules can misfire or even backfire, as in this case. It is a notorious fact that collieries Indian collieries, both before and after nationalisation are strategic sources of the nation’s fuel and, operationally, areas of tragic human hazards. We need coal, we want miners to bring it from the bowels of the earth. The dangerous technology is not yet so perfect in India as to ensure risk-free extraction. And, after many lives have been lost by the neglect of operatives or supervisors or supine bosses, follows the scenario of tears and torndown home, a little monetary compensation, a flutter in Parliament, a longdrawn-out Commission, a routine report about lapses and recipes and the little man’s life-or-death lot continuing to receive callous consideration at the hands of the law, lawmaker, law-enforcer - this sombre colliery disaster sequence must educate and inform the jurisprudence of high-risk operations. ... ...”. 26. It is quiet apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that where the “language” is clear, the intention of the legislature is to be gathered from the language used. What is to be borne in mind is as to what has been said in the statute as also what has not been said. Having regard to the above, this Court is unable to accept the contention of Shri Praneet Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, that the Court below ought not to have taken into consideration a sum of Rs.8,000/-, which has otherwise been prescribed as minimum wages for the purpose of determining the compensation, especially when claimants themselves claimed that monthly wages of deceased were Rs.5,000/- per month including diet money. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the monthly wages specified by the statute by way of amendment at Rs.8000/- is appropriate for consideration for the purpose of computing the compensation and as such, the learned Court below has rightly calculated the compensation by considering the wages of the deceased workman at Rs.8000/-, which in no manner requires any interference.” 11. It is quite apparent from bare reading of judgment, passed by this Court in Govindi Devi (supra) that, while amending the Act, the Legislature has consciously, in its wisdom, omitted Explanation-II to Section 4-A of the Act, with a view to enhance the minimum rates of compensation. In the case at hand, Central Government, by way of Notification dated 31.05.2010, specified Rs.8000/- as monthly wages, not sum of Rs.5000/-, as has been mentioned in the present case. Needless to say, prior to amendment, said wages were fixed at Rs.4000/- and Explanation-II specifically restricted the amount to be Rs.4000/- only even if it exceeds said amount, but, with the issuance of Notification dated 31.05.2010, as has been taken note hereinabove, Central Government has specified Rs.8000/- as minimum wages for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 4 and, while carrying out such amendment, no restriction has been attached or specified that if the monthly wages of deceased employee exceed Rs.8000/- or it is less than Rs.8000/-, it shall be considered as Rs.8000/-. 12. So far penalty Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon the employer for not giving any immediate help to the appellant is concerned, same is upheld. Similarly, this court does not find any reason to modify the rate of interest awarded by learned Commissioner below on the amount of compensation, which is also upheld. 13. In view of the above substantial questions are answered accordingly. 14. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds merit in the present appeal and accordingly, same is partly allowed. Amount awarded by the learned Commissioner below, is reassessed/recalculated as under :- Income of the deceased workman Rs.8,000/- 50%, i.e. half of monthly wage Rs. 4000/- Amount of compensation after applying factor of 213.57 i.e. 4000x213.57 Rs. 8,54,280/- Interest @ 12% Rs.1,02,513/- Total Rs.956,793/- Penalty to be paid by respondent No.1 Rs.50,000/- Total amount Rs.10,06,793/-