NAZMA SHAFI SHAIKH Vs. ASHOK PANNALAL GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL claimants, feeling aggrieved about quantum of compensation awarded, have approached this Court in the First Appeal. Hasan Yasin Shaikh, husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimant no. 2, died in an accident on 22-7-1987. He was employed with present respondent No. 1 as a Driver on his Matador MXD 7960. Other details of the accident need not be stated.

(2.) CLAIMANTS claimed compensation under section 4 of the Workmen's compensation Act. It is admitted by respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company that the vehicle in question was insured with it, the policy was in force on the material date and it covered the risk of the driver. It was a policy of vehicle under Motor Vehicles Act, 1923, covering risk of nine passengers plus one driver. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Judge, Labour court, Ahmadnagar, vide his judgment dated 24-4-1990, in Application WC 3/1988, has awarded compensation of Rs. 69,910/-, penalty Rs. 5,000/- and simple interest @ 6% p. a. from the date of the judgment till realization.

(3.) WHILE arguing for enhanced compensation, Advocate Shri S. D. Pokharkar urged that claimant Nazma, in her deposition, had stated that salary of deceased was Rs. 1,950/-, yet, trial Court has computed the compensation by taking into account salary to be Rs. 800/ -. As can be seen from the record of trial Court, report of the accident of workman was filed by the employer with insurance Company which is at Exh. C-14 of the record of the trial Court. In the report, his monthly wages are stated to be Rs. 800/ -. This was the salary earned between 21-6-1987 to 20-7-1987. Although he was paid further amount of Rs. 195/-, it was his allowance for thirteen days @ Rs. 15/- per day, when on a tour. Advocate Shri S. D. Pokharkar desired that as against this statement of employer, deposition of claimant ought to have been accepted. It must be said that deposition of claimant is a self-serving statement. Same thing cannot be said about an accident report submitted by the owner. If the salary of the employee is on higher side, there is no reason why the employer should state it on lower side, while reporting the matter to Insurance Company. Obviously, report was made to Insurance Company with the belief that Insurance Company will be required to pay the compensation, as a result of contract of insurance between the employer and Insurance Company. I, therefore, do not agree with the submission of Advocate Shri S. D. Pokharkar, that original statement of claimant should have been preferred over the wrong report by the employer submitted to Insurance Company for the purpose of compensation immediately after the accident.