Gauhati HC Raises Workmen's Compensation from Rs 5.81 Lakh to Rs 8.43 Lakh After Finding Commissioner Ignored Owner's Own Admission on Salary

The Gauhati High Court found the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner committed perversity by ignoring a written admission on the deceased driver's monthly salary, recalculating the award upward to Rs 8.43 lakh.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita of the Gauhati High Court, sitting singly, has allowed a compensation appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, by the widow and dependants of a deceased driver, Haraj Ali. The court found that the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Barpeta, had committed clear perversity by recording that no salary certificate was produced by the claimants, when the record showed one had been exhibited, and by ignoring the vehicle owner's own written admission of the salary he paid. The original award of Rs 5,81,280 has been set aside and replaced with Rs 8,43,680, to be paid by Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bongaigaon Branch, within four weeks.

The Accident and the Claim

Haraj Ali was employed as a driver by Rafiqul Mandal to drive a Tata Cruiser bearing registration number AS-15-C-3135. On 23 June 2013, at around 9:00 AM, while driving from Kalgachia towards Guwahati in the course of that employment, the vehicle met with an accident in front of Sarbhog Naboday School under Sarbhog Police Station. Haraj Ali sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Hayat Hospital at Guwahati but succumbed on 26 March 2013.

His widow, Nasima Khatun, along with other dependants including his second wife Jahura Khatun, two minor children, and his father, filed an application before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Barpeta, as W.C. Case No. 328/2015, claiming compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

The claimants stated Haraj Ali earned Rs 12,000 per month. Rafiqul Mandal, in his written statement before the Commissioner, admitted that Haraj Ali was employed by him as a driver of the same vehicle, but stated the monthly salary was Rs 8,000. The vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited, with the policy valid up to the midnight of 12 May 2014, covering the date of the accident.

In support of their claim, appellant No. 1 examined herself as PW-1 and exhibited eleven documents, including a salary certificate marked Exhibit-4. Neither the insurance company nor the vehicle owner led any evidence in their defence.

The Commissioner's Award and the Problem With It

The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Barpeta, by judgment dated 8 October 2020, awarded Rs 5,81,280 to the claimants. In arriving at that figure, the Commissioner assessed the deceased's monthly income at Rs 5,500 — roughly the minimum rate of wages fixed by the Government of Assam for skilled motor transport workers.

The Commissioner's judgment, however, recorded that “the claimants/petitioners have failed to furnish any salary certificate in support of their claim of monthly salary.” This observation became the pivot of the appeal. Exhibit-4, a salary certificate issued by Rafiqul Mandal himself, had in fact been produced and exhibited by PW-1 during evidence. The Commissioner's statement that no such document existed was, on the face of the record, wrong.

The appellants filed MFA/86/2021 before the Gauhati High Court. When the appeal was admitted, a Co-ordinate Bench formulated the following substantial question of law: whether the Commissioner acted lawfully in fixing the monthly salary at Rs 5,500 when the evidence on record and salary certificate showed income of Rs 12,000.

What the High Court Examined

Justice Kalita examined the original records of W.C. Case No. 328/2015, requisitioned from the office of the Commissioner for the purpose of this appeal.

Counsel for the appellants, Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, argued that the Commissioner's finding was perverse on two counts: first, the salary certificate (Exhibit-4) was visibly on record and had been exhibited by PW-1; second, even setting aside that certificate, the owner's own written statement admitted a salary of Rs 8,000, which ought to have been treated as an admission binding on him.

Counsel for the insurance company, Mr. S. Dutta, made a partial concession. He accepted that the Commissioner's observation that no salary certificate was produced appeared to be erroneous, since Exhibit-4 had been exhibited. But he contended that the certificate ought not to be acted upon because the owner was never examined as a witness, and the claimants had not proved it through him. He also urged that in his written statement the owner had said Rs 8,000, not Rs 12,000, so the certificate's higher figure should be disregarded.

The Bench's Reasoning on Perversity

Justice Kalita set out the legal test for perversity. A decision is perverse if no reasonable person would arrive at it on the available evidence; if it is based on no evidence at all; if it rests on irrelevant material; or if it is reached by ignoring vital evidence. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49, which in turn drew on Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons and Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10, summarising the standard: “if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material” or defies logic to the point of irrationality, it is perverse.

Applying that standard, the court held that the Commissioner's statement that no salary certificate was produced was a clear case of arriving at a finding by ignoring or excluding relevant material. Exhibit-4 was on record. The Commissioner had simply not acknowledged it. That was perversity.

On the competing salary figures, the court accepted the insurance company's argument that Exhibit-4 could not be relied upon without the owner being examined as a witness. The certificate showed Rs 12,000 but had not been proved through its author. The court did not treat it as admissible evidence of the salary amount.

However, the owner's written statement was a different matter. In it, Rafiqul Mandal had categorically admitted paying Rs 8,000 per month to Haraj Ali. The court applied the settled proposition that facts admitted need not be proved. The insurance company had not denied that specific averment in the owner's written statement. That admission was therefore available and had to be used.

The Commissioner's fallback to the Assam government's minimum wage rate for skilled motor transport workers (Rs 5,500) was permissible only in the absence of any material on salary. Once a clear admission existed in the written statement, ignoring it and instead using the minimum wage figure was itself perverse. The substantial question of law was answered accordingly.

Recalculation of Compensation

With the monthly salary fixed at Rs 8,000 based on the owner's admission, the court recalculated compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, as follows:

• 50% of Rs 8,000 multiplied by the relevant factor of 209.92 = Rs 8,39,680
• Addition of Rs 4,000 as funeral expenses under Section 4(4) of the Act
• Total compensation: Rs 8,43,680

The revised figure of Rs 8,43,680 compares with the original award of Rs 5,81,280, an increase of Rs 2,62,400. Interest at 9% per annum was retained, running from one month after the date of the original impugned judgment until realisation.

Order

Justice Kalita allowed MFA/86/2021. The impugned judgment and award dated 8 October 2020 was modified to the extent set out above. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bongaigaon Branch, was directed to deposit Rs 8,43,680, together with interest at 9% per annum from one month after 8 October 2020 until realisation, before the office of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Barpeta, within four weeks from 20 July 2026.

Upon deposit, the Commissioner was directed to disburse the amount to the claimants after apportioning it in the proportions indicated in the final part of the original impugned judgment. The court also directed that the original records of W.C. Case No. 328/2015 be returned to the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Barpeta, along with a copy of the High Court's judgment.