Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No 1, and perused the case papers.
On the basis of the material evidence that came to be placed by the claimants, the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation adjudicated the claim and awarded a sum of Rs.4,31,671/- and ordered for payment of interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of the accident till the amount is deposited.
3 4) This Award was challenged by the claimants as being abysmally on the lower side has resulted in a worsened scenario viz., the Award itself was held to be one without jurisdiction viz.,
Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation had no jurisdiction on the premise that it was a contested matter on account of the written statement having been filed by the insurer and there being a embargo as per notification issued under Section 20(1) and (2) of the W.C.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/acquittal-in-kidnapping-and-abduction-case-courts-legal-analysis/
On this count itself, it has to be held that High Court fell in error in arriving at a conclusion that claim 5 petition was not maintainable before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and claimants had to pursue their grievance before the jurisdictional Labour Court. 10) At this juncture itself, it would be apt and appropriate to note that the insurer viz., the first respondent herein pursuant to the Award passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has deposited the award amount as submitted before this Court by the learned 6 counsel.
11)
Having regard to the object of the Act which envisages dispensation of social justice, we are of the considered view that the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation fell in error in arriving at a conclusion that claimants’ income is to be construed at Rs.3,900/- p.m. 12) Thus, the irresistible conclusion which we have to draw is, the unchallenged statement of the wife of the deceased who had deposed that her husband was earning Rs.6,000/- per month deserves to be accepted as gospel truth.
777 of 2014 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna and award a compensation of Rs.6,64,110/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred and Ten only) with interest @ 12% p.a.
17)
Costs made easy.
Case Title: MAMTA DEVI Vs. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (2023 INSC 566)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003904-003904 / 2023
