13 years after fatal crash, Gauhati High Court hikes payout to driver’s family to Rs 8.43 lakh

Family challenges award

The man was employed as a driver and allegedly earned a monthly salary of Rs 12,000. On June 23, 2013, while driving his employer’s Tata Cruiser from Kalgachia to Guwahati, the vehicle met with an accident near Sarbhog Naboday School.

The victim sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Hayat Hospital, Guwahati, where he succumbed to the injuries. His widow, children and father later filed a claim under the Employees’ Compensation Act seeking compensation for his death arising out of and in the course of employment.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita held that the only issue was whether the commissioner had wrongly assessed the monthly income at Rs 5,500.

The commissioner awarded Rs 5.81 lakh by calculating his monthly wages at Rs 5,500, prompting the family to appeal before the high court, arguing that the victim’s actual salary had been wrongly ignored despite the evidence.

The petitioners argued that the commissioner wrongly held that no salary certificate had been produced. They contended that the finding was perverse because the commissioner ignored evidence which was already on record while assessing the victim’s income.

‘Can’t ignore salary admission’

The court held that the only issue was whether the commissioner had perversely assessed the monthly income at Rs 5,500 despite evidence regarding his actual salary. It was observed that a finding is perverse when it ignores relevant evidence, relies on irrelevant material, or is based on no evidence at all.

The judge noted that the vehicle owner’s written statement admitted employing the victim as a driver on a monthly salary of Rs 8,000, while the salary certificate mentioned Rs 12,000. Therefore, it was incorrect to conclude that there was no evidence of the victim’s salary. Although the salary certificate could not be fully relied upon because its author was not examined, the owner’s written admission regarding payment of Rs 8,000 per month was undisputed and constituted valid evidence, it held.

The court underlined the principle that facts which are admitted need not be proved, and the commissioner’s failure to consider the owner’s admission amounted to ignoring evidence. It held that the commissioner should not have resorted to minimum wages for calculating compensation when there was clear evidence of the victim’s actual monthly salary.