Employees' Compensation Act | Gauhati High Court Enhances Award After Finding Commissioner Ignored Employer's Admission On Driver's Salary
The Gauhati High Court has enhanced the compensation payable to the family of a deceased driver after holding that the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Barpeta, committed perversity by ignoring the employer's admission regarding the deceased's monthly salary while assessing compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita allowed the appeal and...
The Gauhati High Court has enhanced the compensation payable to the family of a deceased driver after holding that the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Barpeta, committed perversity by ignoring the employer's admission regarding the deceased's monthly salary while assessing compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita allowed the appeal and increased the compensation from ₹5,81,280 to ₹8,43,680, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
The appeal, filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, arose from the award dated October 8, 2020, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Barpeta. The substantial question of law framed by the High Court was whether the Commissioner had acted lawfully in fixing the monthly salary of the deceased driver at ₹5,500 despite evidence on record indicating otherwise.
Haraj Ali, the deceased, was employed as a driver by the respondent-owner to drive a Tata Cruiser. On June 23, 2013, while driving the vehicle in the course of his employment from Kalgachia to Guwahati, the vehicle met with an accident near Sarbhog, causing grievous injuries to him. He later succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, his family approached the Commissioner seeking compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act.
Before the Commissioner, the owner admitted in his written statement that Haraj Ali had been employed as a driver and that he was paid ₹8,000 per month. The claimants, meanwhile, produced a salary certificate showing that the deceased was drawing ₹12,000 per month. Despite this, the Commissioner assessed his monthly income at ₹5,500 after observing that no salary certificate had been furnished.
Challenging the award, the appellants argued that the finding was perverse since the salary certificate had been exhibited and, in any event, the employer had categorically admitted paying the deceased ₹8,000 per month.
The insurance company, on the other hand, contended that the salary certificate could not be relied upon because the owner, who had issued it, was never examined as a witness, thereby depriving the insurer of an opportunity to cross-examine him.
After examining the original records, the High Court noted that although there was a discrepancy between the salary mentioned in the written statement and that reflected in the salary certificate, there was nevertheless material on record regarding the deceased's income. The Court observed:
“As such, the observation made by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Barpeta in the impugned judgment to the effect that 'the claimants/petitioners have failed to furnish any salary certificate in support of their claim of monthly salary' is a clear case of arriving at a finding of fact by ignoring or excluding relevant materials, which amounts to an act of perversity.”
The Court further observed that while the owner's failure to testify might have justified discarding the salary certificate, there was no dispute that the owner had categorically admitted in his written statement that the deceased had been employed as a driver at a monthly salary of ₹8,000.
Emphasising that admitted facts need not be proved, the Court held:
“It is a settled proposition of law that facts admitted need not be proved. As such, the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Barpeta ought to have taken into consideration the clear admission by the owner of the offending vehicle as regards the fact of payment of Rs.8,000/- as salary to the deceased Haraj Ali.”
The Court added that although the Commissioner could have relied on the minimum wages notified by the Government of Assam in the absence of evidence regarding the deceased's salary, the employer's admission regarding payment of ₹8,000 per month could not have been ignored.
Holding that the Commissioner had committed perversity by ignoring relevant material while assessing the deceased's income, the High Court recalculated the compensation by taking Haraj Ali's monthly salary to be ₹8,000. It consequently enhanced the compensation to ₹8,43,680 and directed Oriental Insurance Company Limited to deposit the amount, along with interest at 9% per annum from one month after the Commissioner's award until realisation, within four weeks.
The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case No.: MFA No. 86 of 2021
Case Title: Nasima Khatun & Ors. v. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 95