SARASU Vs. R SUGUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is preferred by the claimants against award dated 14.12.2000, made in W.C.No.62 of 2000, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem by raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether deduction made by the learned Commissioner out of total award amount is right in law, when the employer of the deceased paid extra premium amount towards personal accident claim coverage?

(2.) THE order of learned Commissioner in respect of issue No.2 is right in law?

(3.) HEARD the counsel. On the side of the applicants, the mother of the deceased Sarasu was examined as P.W.1 and documents Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the respondent Insurance Company one Ragavan, AAO, was examined as R.W.1 and documents Exs.R1 and R2 were marked to substantiate their claim. Ex.A1 is First Information Report. Ex.A2 is the RC. Ex.A3 is the Policy and Ex.P4 is the Postmortem Certificate. Ex.R1 is the letter dated 24.02.2000 of R.Sukumar and Ex.R2 is the Disbursement (claims) voucher. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, held that the accident had occurred only during the course of employment and fixed the age of the deceased at 20 years old at the time of the accident. Ex.A4-Postmortem Certificate and the evidence of the P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased, corroborated the same. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem has correctly fixed the deceased's age at 20 years at the time of accident. P.W.1 also stated that her husband was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. But to prove the same no document was filed. As per the Workmen Compensation Act, in respect of the cleaner, the minimum wage is Rs.2,153/- per month. But, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem restricted the same to Rs.2,000/- per month by relying Section 4(1)(b) Explanation II of WC (A) Act, 1995. Considering the said Act, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, is correct in restricting the claim at Rs.2,000/-. After considering the age and monthly wage, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem has correctly determined the compensation at Rs.2,24,000/-. I don't find any error in fixing the compensation amount. After fixing the compensation amount, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour found that the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under personal accident policy. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- only. Taking into consideration of the same, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem has correctly deducted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- received by the claimants from the compensation amount by following the Judgment relied on by the respondent in the case of Mrs.Helen C.Rebello and others v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. and another, reported in 1999 -1 - L.W.208. Therefore, the question Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the second respondent-Insurance Company and against the appellants-claimants.