Case Title: Mamta Devi & Ors. v The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Anr.
Summary
The Supreme Court has awarded enhanced compensation to the kin of a deceased employee under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, in a case involving a motor vehicle driver. The Appellants, consisting of his wife, son, and parents, filed a claim petition with the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation to recover damages for the untimely death of Mr. Vakil Choudhary in the line of employment. The employer admitted that the employee’s wife had deposed his income under oath and the employer itself acknowledged the same.
The High Court vacated the award due to the disputed matter being outside the scope of the judgement. The Appellants were required to bring their complaint before the Labour Court with jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found that the insurer’s failure to conduct cross-examination following the submission of its written statement, the claimants’ assertion cannot be considered contested, and the claim was uncontested.
The Supreme Court adopted an empathetic stance, reversing the High Court’s decision and awarding an increased compensation of Rs. 6,64,110, plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum, rather than remanding the case to the High Court. The interest component shall be computed from the date of payment until one month has passed since the date of the accident, with the exclusion of any funds already deposited by the insurer.
About the case
While holding that the purpose of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 is the administration of social justice, the Supreme Court has awarded enhanced compensation to the kin of a deceased employee under the Act. Adopting a compassionate stance, the Bench has granted enhanced compensation to the family of the deceased rather than remanding the case to the High Court for further deliberation. In deciding the appeal Mamta Devi & Ors. v The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Anr., the Bench consisting of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar determined that the Deputy Labour Commissioner could not have awarded a lesser amount of minimum wage compensation when the employer admitted that the employee’s wife had deposed his income under oath and the employer itself acknowledged the same.
A Brief Overview On April 21, 2011, motor vehicle driver Mr. Vakil Choudhary (Employee) was involved in a fatal accident while on the job for Respondent No. 2. The individuals who filed a claim petition with the ‘Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation’ in an effort to recover damages for the untimely death of the deceased Mr Vakil Choudhary in the line of employment are the Appellants (Claimants), consisting of his wife, son, and parents. The Appellants argue that Sri Vakil was remunerated Rs. 6,000 per month for the aforementioned employment, and that the Employer acknowledged payment of that amount.
While the Employer and the Insurer did not pursue the matter further, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of the offending vehicle, submitted a written statement. The Deputy Labour Commissioner assessed the deceased’s monthly income at Rs. 3,900, in accordance with the minimum wage rate of Rs. 150, in the absence of any substantiating Income documentation. As a result, the insurer was ordered to pay the appellants an award for a reduced amount of Rs. 4,31,671 plus 6% p.a. interest. In front of the High Court, the Appellants contested the Award. The Award was vacated by the High Court on the grounds that the disputed matter at hand was a contested case, which is considered outside the scope of the judgment.
It was determined that the Appellants were required to bring their complaint before the Labour Court with jurisdiction. The relevant government issued a notification entrusting the presiding officers of the Labour Court with the adjudication of all contested claims arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, in accordance with Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the aforementioned legislation. Appellants petitioned the Supreme Court to review the High Court’s order in their challenge. In the Supreme Court, Due to the insurer’s failure to conduct cross-examination following the submission of its written statement, the claimants’ assertion cannot be considered contested. As a result, the claim was uncontested, the Bench noted, since the Employer had admitted the allegations contained in the Appellant’s claim. In addition, the insurer did not conduct cross-examination of the claimants and their witnesses subsequent to the submission of the written submission. Furthermore, without contestation, the insurer deposited the award amount. “It appears that the insurer of the negligent vehicle conducted no cross-examination of the plaintiffs and their witnesses subsequent to the submission of the written statement. “Therefore, the claimants’ petition for compensation would not qualify as a “contested claim” as defined in the notification issued by the relevant government pursuant to Section 20 (1) and (2) of the W.C. Act,” advised the Bench.
Accept as gospel truth the uncontested statement of the wife concerning the monthly salary of the deceased husband. Although the deceased employee’s wife testified under oath regarding his monthly salary, the Bench noted that the Deputy Labour Commissioner erroneously calculated his salary as the minimum wage. “We are of the considered opinion that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation erred in concluding that the claimants’ income should be construed as Rs. 3,900/- p.m. or that the minimum wage to be computed should be Rs. 150/- per day in the absence of proof of income, with respect to the intent of the Act, which is the administration of social justice.” The employer’s written statement would provide a comprehensive response to this, to the extent that it unequivocally acknowledges that the deceased was earning a monthly wage of Rs.6,000. Truck operator by profession, the individual in question lost his life in 2011 after providing sustenance for four mouths. It is incomprehensible how the income he claimed to have earned, as verified by his wife in her sworn statement, could be considered excessive or not proportional to the wages a truck driver earned in 2011.
The Bench determined that since the deceased employee’s monthly salary of Rs. 6,000 was not in dispute, the deposed statement of the deceased’s wife should be accepted as gospel truth. “Therefore, the indisputable conclusion that we must reach is that the deposed statement of the deceased’s wife, who claimed that her husband earned Rs. 6,000 per month, should be accepted as gospel truth.” No grounds for doubting her assertion are apparent to us.
As the bereaved spouse, children, and parents have been patiently awaiting a just compensation award, the Bench adopted an empathetic stance. The Bench therefore reversed the High Court’s decision and awarded an increased compensation of Rs. 6,64,110, plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum, as opposed to remanding the case to the High Court. The interest component shall be computed from the date of payment until one month has passed since the date of the accident, with the exclusion of any funds already deposited by the insurer.
