Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rani vs The Branch Manager M/S Shriram General ... on 21 February, 2023
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, C.T. Ravikumar
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2023
(Arising out of SLP(Civil No.25495/2018)
RANI & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S SHRIRAM
GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Ashish Varma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants. Also heard Ms. Meenakshi Midha, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company-respondent No.2.
3. The challenge here is to the High Court’s judgment whereby the order of the Court, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in favour of the claimants was reduced to Rs.5,54,875/- (from Rs.8,79,800/-) by adverting to the pleadings in the written statement of the claimants.
4. The basis for the computation of the income of the deceased who was the cleaner engaged in the Tempo owned by the 1st respondent was the Notification S.O.1258(E) dated 31.05.2010 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Singh of the Ministry of Labour and Employment whereby the minimum Date: 2023.02.24 16:40:41 IST Reason: wages was prescribed as Rs.8000/- per month in terms of the 2 power under Section 4(1)(b)of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Adverting to the minimum wages notified by the Ministry, the Court computed the awardable sum at Rs.8,79,800/-.
5. The only basis for the High Court to reduce the compensation is because of the averments in the written statement. In this context, we may benefit by adverting to the ratio in K. Sivaraman and Others vs. P. Sathishkumar and Another1, where adverting to the very same notification of the Central Government, the following observation was made by this Court:-
“8. In the meantime, a Notification was issued by the Central Government on 31-5-2010 in the following terms:
“S.O.1258(E) – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1B) of Section 4 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, (8 of 1923), the Central Government hereby specified, for the purpose of Sub-Section (1) of the said section, the following amount as monthly wages, with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, namely – eight thousand rupees.”
9. The High Court was of the view that having due regard to the fact that the legislation in question is a social welfare legislation, the enhanced income of Rs.8000 per month should form the basis of the computation. Thus, applying the multiplicand in terms of Schedule IV, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 8,86,120.”
6. Seeing the above, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was in error by taking the lesser sum as the monthly wages of the deceased which is well below the figure that was notified in the Gazette Notification dated 31.05.2010, issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment. The Court’s 1 (2020) 4 SCC 594 3 order under the Workmen’s compensation Act dated 01.04.2016 is accordingly restored.
7. If the computed amount has not been disbursed by the Insurance Company(respondent No.2), the same must be disbursed within four weeks from today with 12% interest, as was ordered on 01.04.2016 by the Court, under the Workmen’s compensation Act. It is ordered accordingly.
8. The appeal thus stands allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.......................J. ( HRISHIKESH ROY ) .......................J. ( C.T. RAVIKUMAR ) NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 21, 2023
4
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.16 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 25495/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-04-2018 in MFA No. 4897/2016 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru) RANI & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE BRANCH MANAGER M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Respondent(s) Date : 21-02-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashish Varma, Adv.
Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Adv.
Mr. Garv Singh, Adv.
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK JOSHI) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the File)