K S R T C Vs. SUNDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the K.S.R.T.C. is directed against the award dated 19th, December, 1980 passed by the Commissioner for workmen's Compensation Kolar Dt., Kolar, in Case No. F. C. 10 of 1980, awarding compensation of Rs. 24,000 to the widow of the deceased Shivalingam. The only question that was canvassed for consideration in this appeal is that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is excessive and is not in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 (hereinafter called the 'Act') .

(2.) The widow-claimant claimed compensation by filing an application before the Commissioner on 15.10.80 stating that she is the wife of late Shivalingam, driver in KSRTC attached to Chintamani depot, who died on 8-4-76 near Sundarapalya in Chintamani, in Chintamani to V. Kota route while driving the bus bearing No. MYF 6755 belonging to the respondents. She also stated that the monthly wages of the deceased was Rs. 400. The said petition was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the accident was due to his fash and negligent act. They stated that the deceased while performing duties on the Chintamani and V. Kota route and while negotiating 'S' Curve dashed against a culvert bridge near Sundarapalya, and apprehending danger of the accident, jumped out of the vehicle, fell on a Jelly heap, sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same on 8-11-76. The accident is therefore on account ,of his rash and negligent driving and as such they are not liable to pay the compensation. The Commissioner idr workmen's compensation after assessing the evidence held that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, the driver in question and therefore proceeded to award compensation of Rs. 24,000. It is the legality and correctness of the said award that is challenged by the owner in this appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that a sum of Rs. 46 towards line allowance and a sum of Rs. 50 towards night-put allowances, included by the Commissioner ought not to have been included in the, wages payable to the deceased as they do not come under the definition of wages under S. 2(m) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. S. 2 (m) reads thus: 2. "Wages" includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than a travelling allowance or the value of any travelling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a workman towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to a workman to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment." The learned Counsel appearing for the owner submitted that the amounts are covered under the special expenses entailed on the workman by the nature of his employment. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that the said wages include any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money. They being batta we are in agreement with the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant. It has been held by this Court that batta is included in the term of wages which in turn is privilege and benefit such as batta vide Saundatti (S. B.) v. Blyamma (1) . Further it is clear that the line allowance and nightout allowance would clearly come under the privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money and would not cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment. It is also held by this Court that if there is any ambiguity the benefit of doubt should go to the workmen as held by this Court in Hindustan Aeronautical Ltd., v. Bone John (2) . If that is so, there is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the owner and the Commissioner was justified in computing the compensation taking into consideration the line allowance and also the night out allowance as part of 'wages' which includes the privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money. If that is so, there is no substance in this appeal and the same is liable to be a dismissed and we dismiss the same.