BASANTABAI Vs. SHAMIM BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was admitted for final hearing on 19.1.2011 on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) In respect of income of the deceased it is submitted that deceased was working as cleaner on the truck bearing registration No. MP 13-E 0553 and during the course of employment he met with an accident in which he sustained grievous injuries. During the treatment on 10.10.2005 he died at Government Hospital. Mandsaur. At the time of death he was 18 years of age and his salary was Rs. 4,000 per month. Apart from his salary he was getting the dainik bhatta of Rs. 50 per day. Exhs. P1 to P7 are the documents in respect of wages of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Basantabai in her statement has deposed that income of the deceased was Rs. 3,000 per month, but she in her evidence has not stated that the deceased was not getting Rs. 50 per day as bhatta and submitted that the learned Commissioner wrongly disbelieved the said part of the evidence and assessed his income at Rs. 3,000 per month.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. M. Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent insurance company, supported the order passed by Commissioner and submitted that bhatta is not a part of wages as defined in clause (m) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. This question was considered by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior Bench in the case of Shakuntala v. Kanna Dangi, 2007 ACJ 2486. Para 11 which is relevant reads as herein-below: