Punni Bai And ORS v. Kailash Motwani And ANR
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
o (, IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.C. No.
f"35"7L-of 2014 APPELLANTS:
1.
Punni Bai Wife ofLate Kartikram aged (Claimants) -^^ about 30 years, Ghanshyam Nishad S/o LateKartikram aged about 14years, ^ \^^^\^ L^-^^^~ 3.
^^^••^^•'''''''^- ^'rtV^ 4.
^- Ku.Ganeshi D/o Late Kartikram aged about 12 years, Chintu Nishad S/o Late Ramadhar Nishad aged about 65 years, 5.
Bhagwantin Bai W/o Chintu Nishad aged about 60 years.
Minor appellants No.
2 and 3 For Mother Punnibai.
All Resident- Near Shradhanand School, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, Police station Tikrapara, District - Raipur (C.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :
1. Kailash Motwani, aged about 40 years S/o Raghumal Motwani R/o In front of Labour Commisner office Kachhahari Chowk Raipur (C.G.).
_ The Oriental Insurance Company Limited By Branch Manager, Mandina Building Jail road Raipur (C.G.).
MISCELIANEAUS APPEAL U/S OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT FOR THE ENHANCEMENT IN THE AWARD PASSED BY THE CLAIMS COMMISSIONER RAIPUR (C.G.\ __ __ _-
u v^.,;:
(vo HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench:
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1357 of 2014 Appellants Claimants Punni Bai and others
VERSUS
Respondents Kailash Motwani and another
Present:
Shri Rakesh Lodhi, counsel for the appellants. ISIfc If /^ W the instant Appeal under SectioN 3|r^f|he Employees' (^^l^tion Act (for short ^the,Act'), the appellantMIS&Bts have liged the award ^(^(g^j^g^ssed. by the Co^fi(g>ner, iployees'
Compensati|j,y|ki8ft^U@ourt, Raipur (for srtort 'the Commissioner') inClaims ^g^|$|UC.Act/2010/Fatal. Facts in brief are tha|,jd| 1^1 Kartiram, who is the husband of SAtt.
ints No.2 & 3 and the son of appellant No.1 and fathepi respondents No.4 & 9|jF|(effiyiJa^||ccident on 28.11.2009 while discharging his duties as d%lttpgsniig?truck bearing registration No.CG 04 ZC 6120.
Due to extra ^^afl^<ltrain while unloading of iron rods loaded in the said truck, the deceased sustained Cardio Respiratory Failure resulting in his death. The said truckwas insured with respondent No.2/lnsurance Company.
As the death of Kartikram took place jn the course and arising out ofthe employment, the appellants/claimants had filed a claim petition before the Commissioner claiming for compensatiQn undertheAct.
3.
The court below has, after considering the total facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the evidence which has been led on behalf of the appellants/claimants in respect of the age and salary of the deceased, reached to the conclusion that the appellants/claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,91,172.
4.
It is this award which is under challenge in the instant appeal. 5.
The sole ground raised by counsel for the appellants is that in fact
the calculation for compensation by the Commissioner i.e. the court below has not been properly made and in fact the appellants/claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.3,11,970.
He further submits that in the instant case, the salary of the deceased was Rs.3,000 per month but the court below has not properly appreciated the same and has assessed the salary for the purpose of calculation of compensation at Rs.2,800 and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and is liable to be enhanced.
6.
Ifwe peruse the record, it would show that the Commissioner has assessed the salary of the deceased to be Rs.2,800 based on the i.^tl|^wife of the deceased who, in evidence of appellantyaii S iliB the time of accident, her depositipfft'HliftstiW receivir^silary of Rs.700per week which odWs jl|Sutotal amount of R^2^||yper month and it was on the basis of fflil^l^tement of ^ipgilanVclaimant No.1 he,|wife;|>f||gideceased that the C@|yfti|sioner Was reached to the con6iu^i|r||;|a||||isalary received by the detfased at the time of accident was Rsl%%®l||i|JWonth.
7.
In view of above.it cai ii|rtt>| ^id that the court below has, in any manner, committed an ei]K(|g%;c||\li3^|hile calculating the compensation payable to the appella^^!a)r0|i!ts,^@ordin9ly, the instant appeal not having any substantial quli 8SBSHii,"1:he same fails and is accordingly rejected.
.,.-.. .,..,.
P. Sam Koshy Judge Priya