VIMALABAI Vs. BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed a petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's compensation Act before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Belgaum, claiming compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs stating that her son viz. , Mahesh Naik, aged 20 years, who was working as Cleaner on vehicle bearing No. KA-22/5631 belonging to the first respondent on monthly salary of Rs. 2,000/- with bhatta of Rs. 1,000/- per month, met with an accident on 24-8-2000 near National Restaurant near Tumkur when said vehicle was dashed by another vehicle bearing No. KA-02/d-7779 coming from opposite direction and later died while taking treatment and hence, she, being the mother of deceased, is entitled to compensation. The first respondent-owner of the vehicle did not appear before the Commissioner in spite of service of notice and hence, he was proceeded ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance Company, which was wrongly impleaded earlier, did not prefer to file any objections. However, third respondent (another Insurance Company), impleaded later, filed objections. After enquiry, the Commissioner allowed the claim petition and held that appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,86,548. 00 with interest @ 12% per annum, if the amount is not paid within 30 days from 3-4-2001. Not satisfied with the said order, the appellant has filed present appeal before this Court.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, in view of her positive and unrebutted evidence that her son was getting wages @ Rs. 2,000/- with Rs. 1,000/- as "bhatta" per month, the Commissioner was not right in invoking the minimum wages notification with regard to the wages of her deceased son and in not determining proper compensation under Section 4 of the workmen's Compensation Act and also in ordering interest from 3-5-2001. Heard argument and perused the record.

(3.) FOLLOWING substantial questions of law arise for consideration.