061-NLR-NLR-V-45-SANSONI-Appellant-and-THE-COMMISSIONER-FOR-WORKMEN’S-COMPENSATION-Respondent.pdf
Sans on i and The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation.
289
1944Present: Soertsz J.
SANSONI, Appellant, and THE COMMISSIONER FORWORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, Respondent.
No. 81—Workmen’s Compensation.
Workmen's Compensation—Motor car driver—Basis of Compensation—Amountof wages actually paid—Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance, s. 6.
In assessing compensation due to a motor car driver under theWorkmen's Compensation Ordinance the determining factor is theamount of wages actually paid and not the amount payable under theMotor Car Ordinance.
A
PPEAL from an order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Com-pensation.
S.W. Jayasuriya, for the employer, appellant.
No appearance for the respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
{1926) A. C. 94.
{1930) A. I. R. Mad. p. 209.
240 SOERTSZ J.—Sansoni and The Commissioner for Workmen's CompensationMay 3, 1944. Soertsz J.—
An interesting question arises on this appeal, under the Workmen’sCompensation Ordinance. The relevant facts are as follows. B. Simeonwas the driver employed by the appellant to drive his hiring car. OnAugust 5, 1942 this driver was killed in trying to avoid a collision with aMilitary truck that, suddenly came round a comer.
The Commissioner found—in my opinion, correctly—that at the timethis man was killed he was acting within the scope and in the course ofhis employment under the appellant, and that he was a monthly paidservant receiving, in fact, twenty rupees a month as his wages. On thatbasis the compensation payable by the appellant would, in terms ofsection 6 of the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance read with ScheduleIV. thereto be Its. 630. But the Commissioner has fixed it at Es. 1,200on the ground that under the Regulations framed under the Motor CarOrdinance, No. 45 of 1938, the minimum wage payable in respect of a carof the weight of this case was Its. 40 per mensem.
The question is whether for the purpose of assessing compensationunder the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance the determining factor isthe amount actually paid or the amount payable. In my opinion it is theamount paid that matters, for having regard to the fact that Schedule IV.compensates on the basis of the wages received by the labourer, givingmore to him that hath, it would appear that the principle adopted is thepractical principle of the standard of living that the workman may besupposed to have provided for his dependants on the wages he received.
Section 105 of the Motor Car Ordinance and the Regulations framedthereunder have, in my view no bearing on the question of compensationunless of course it has been complied with. Its violation would involvethe employer in the penalty provided for its breach and would alsorender him civilly liable to make good the difference to the servant or tohis estate and if before the question of compensation tarises there isrecovery of that difference it would ~5e taken into account in fixingcompensation for the dependent heirs. But this is not such a case.There has been no recovery nor would it have mattered if there had been,for the sole dependent, here, is not an heir.
I would, therefore, reduce the compensation payable to Es. 630.
Varied.