Gauhati High Court
Nasima Khatun vs The Divisional Manager on 20 July, 2026
Page No. 1/11
GAHC010060342021
2026:GAU-AS:9907
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/86/2021
NASIMA KHATUN
W/O- LATE HARAJ ALI, R/O- VILL.- KHARBALLI, P.O. AND P.S.
KALGACHIA, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781319.
2: JAHURA KHATUN
W/O- LATE HARAJ ALI
R/O- VILL.- KHARBALLI
P.O. AND P.S. KALGACHIA
DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781319.
3: HAFIJA KHATUN
REP. BY MOTHER
APPLICANT NO. 1
R/O- VILL.- KHARBALLI
P.O. AND P.S. KALGACHIA
DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781319.
4: RAKIBUL ISLAM
REP. BY MOTHER
APPLICANT NO. 1
R/O- VILL.- KHARBALLI
P.O. AND P.S. KALGACHIA
DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM
5: HAMID ALI @ MD. ABDUL HANIF
S/O- LATE KASER ALI
(FATHER OF THE DECEASED)
R/O- VILL.- KHARBALLI
P.O. AND P.S. KALGACHIA
Page No. 2/11
DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781319
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BONGAIGAON (ASSAM) BRANCH OFFICE BARPETA ROAD, PIN- 781315.
2:RAFIQUL MANDAL
S/O- LATE MAKADDAS ALI MANDAL
R/O- VILL. AND P.O. KALGACHIA
DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781319
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
For the Appellants : Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate
(for respondent No. 1)
Date of Hearing : 14.07.2026
Date of Judgment : 20.07.2026
JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. Heard Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, the learned counsel for the appellants.
Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
2. This appeal, under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act,
1923, has been filed by the appellants impugning the judgment and award
dated 08.10.2020, passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s
Page No. 3/11
Compensation, Barpeta, in W.C. Case No. 328/2015, whereby the present
appellants were awarded compensation amount of Rs.5,81,280/-(Rupees Five
Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Two Hundred Eighty) only on account of death of
the husband of the appellant No. 1, namely, late Haraj Ali in a vehicular accident
during the course of his employment under the respondent No. 2 (opposite
party No. 1 before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Barpeta).
3. The facts relevant for consideration of this appeal, in brief, are that the
husband of the present appellant No. 1, namely, deceased Haraj Ali, was
employed as a driver by the present respondent No. 2, namely Rafiqul Mandal
to drive his vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-15-C-3135 (Tata Cruiser) at a
monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-.
4. On 23.06.2013, at about 9:00 AM when during the course of his
employment, late Haraj Ali was driving the aforesaid vehicle and proceeding
from Kalgachia towards Guwahati, the said vehicle met with an accident in front
of Sarbhog Naboday School at Sarbhog under Sarbhog Police Station. As a
result of the said accident, the husband of the appellant No. 1 sustained
grievous injury and he was immediately shifted to Hayat Hospital at Guwahati
for treatment. However, said Haraj Ali succumbed to his injuries on 26.03.2013.
5. Thereafter, the present appellants approached the Commissioner,
Workmen’s Compensation, Barpeta by filing an application under the provisions
of Employees’ Compensation Act 1923, seeking compensation for death of Haraj
Ali in course of his employment as a driver of opposite party No. 1. The owner
of the vehicle, namely, Rafiqul Mandal (opposite party No. 1) submitted written
statement in the aforesaid proceeding and admitted the fact that the husband of
the appellant No. 1, namely, Haraj Ali, was appointed as a driver by him to drive
Page No. 4/11
his vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-15-C-3135 (Tata Cruiser) and also
admitted that he used to pay a salary of Rs.8,000/- per month to the deceased
Haraj Ali. It was also contended that the offending vehicle was insured with the
present respondent No. 1 i.e., Oriental Insurance Company and the validity of
insurance policy was up to the midnight of 12.05.2014.
6. In support of their contention, the present appellant No. 1 examined
herself as PW-1 and also exhibited eleven documents as Exhibit- 1 to Exhibit-11.
The Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle did not adduce
any evidence in their defence. Ultimately, the Commissioner, Workmen’s
Compensation, Barpeta, by the judgment, which has been impugned in this
appeal, awarded the amount of compensation, in the manner, as already
described in the foregoing paragraphs.
7. On filing of this appeal, at the time of admitting it, the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court by its order dated 05.04.2021 had formulated following
substantial question of law: –
“1) Whether the learned Commissioner acted lawfully and rightly in fixing
the monthly salary of the deceased driver at Rs.5,500/-, whereas, as per
the evidence on record/ salary certificate, the income of the deceased was
Rs.12,000/-?”
8. Mr. M. H. Rajbarbhuiyan, the learned counsel for the appellants submits
that though the claimant while deposing as PW-1 exhibited the salary certificate
issued by the owner of the offending vehicle as Exhibit-4, however, in the
impugned judgment, at page No. 5 of the same, it was observed by the learned
Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Barpeta that claimants/petitioners
Page No. 5/11
have failed to furnish any salary certificate in support of their claim for monthly
salary.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the aforesaid
observations made by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation,
Barpeta in the impugned judgment is a perverse observation as apparently the
salary certificate was exhibited as Exhibit-4 by the claimant (PW-1). He further
submits that in his written statement submitted by the owner of the offending
vehicle, before the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Barpeta, in
W.C. Case No. 328/2015, it has been categorically stated by the owner that he
used to pay a monthly wage of Rs.8,000/- to the deceased driver, Haraj Ali.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that mention of
Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.12,000/- in the written statement might be due to
some typographical mistake as the Exhibit-4 i.e., salary certificate which was
also issued by the owner of the offending vehicle categorically mentions that the
salary of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.12,000/- per month. He,
therefore, submits that since perversity in the judgment of the Workmen’s
Compensation, Barpeta while assessing the monthly income of the deceased
driver is apparent from the judgment itself, same is liable to be modified and the
compensation to be awarded to appellants should be re-assessed after taking
monthly income of the deceased Haraj Ali at Rs.12,000/-.
11. On the other hand, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has submitted that though there appears to be an apparent erroneous
observation made by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation,
Barpeta in the impugned judgment that no salary certificate was produced by
the claimant as same was exhibited as Exhibit-4 by the PW-1, however, he
Page No. 6/11
submits that the present respondent No. 1, i.e., Oriental Insurance Company
Limited was deprived of opportunity of cross-examining the owner as he was
never examined by the claimant and as such the Exhibit-4 should not be taken
into consideration. He further submits that Exhibit-4 was issued by the owner of
the offending vehicle and as such to prove the said document, he ought to have
been examined as a witness by the claimants.
12. He further submits that in the written statement, the owner of the
offending vehicle had admitted the monthly salary of the deceased to be only
Rs.8,000/- and not Rs.12,000/- and as such, the Exhibit-4 may not be taken into
consideration.
13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both
sides. I have also gone through the materials available on record including the
original records of W.C. Case No. 328/2015, which was requisitioned from the
Office of learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Barpeta, in
connection with the instant appeal.
14. The only substantial question of law to be adjudicated in this appeal is
whether the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Barpeta committed
perversity by holding, in the impugned judgment, that the claimants failed to
furnish any salary certificate in support of their claim of monthly salary of the
deceased Haraj Ali and whether it committed perversity by assessing the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,500/-.
15. A decision may be regarded as perverse if no reasonable person would
have arrived at the same on the basis of evidence which is available on record.
A decision would necessarily be perverse if it is based on no evidence at all. It is
Page No. 7/11
also perverse when it is based on some irrelevant materials. It is also perverse
when while arriving at the decision, vital evidence has been ignored.
16. The Apex Court, has observed in the case of “Associate Builders -vs-
DDA” reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49as follows: –
32. A good working test of perversity is contained in two
judgments. In Excise and Taxation Officercum-Assessing Authority
v. Gopi Nath & Sons [1992 Supp (2) SCC 312] , it was held : (SCC
p. 317, para 7)“7. … It is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived
at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking
into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so
outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of
irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the
finding is rendered infirm in law.”
In Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police [(1999) 2 SCC 10 : 1999 SCC
(L&S) 429] , it was held : (SCC p. 14, para 10)
“10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between
the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a
decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is
thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon
it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on
record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon,
howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be
treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered
with.”
Page No. 8/11
17. Thus, it is the settled legal proposition that if a finding of fact is arrived
at by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or if the finding so
outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the
blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law.
18. In the instant case, it is apparent that in the written statement filed by
the owner of the offending vehicle before the Commissioner, Workmen’s
Compensation, Barpeta, in W.C. Case No. 328/2015, it was categorically stated
by the owner of the offending vehicle that the deceased was engaged as driver
of his vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-15-C-3135 (Tata Cruiser) at a monthly
salary of Rs.8,000/-. It also appears that the claimant No. 1 while deposing as
PW-1 has also exhibited the salary certificate issued by the owner of the
offending vehicle as Exhibit-4. Though, there is a discrepancy in the amount of
monthly salary of the deceased mentioned in the written statement of the
owner of the offending vehicle as well as in the Exhibit-4, in as much as, in the
former it was stated to be Rs.8,000/- per month, whereas, in the later same is
stated to be Rs.12,000/- per month, however, it cannot be said that there was
no material on record as regards the monthly salary of the deceased Haraj Ali.
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.
19. Though, the owner of the offending vehicle was not examined as a
witness and Exhibit-4 was not exhibited by him as a witness, which may be a
good reason for discarding the Exhibit-4, however, there is no dispute that in his
Page No. 9/11
written statement, the owner of the offending vehicle has categorically stated
that the deceased was engaged as driver of his vehicle bearing Registration No.
AS-15-C-3135 (Tata Cruiser) at a monthly salary of Rs.8,000/-.
20. 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. Moreso, when in their written statement, the Insurance Company
though had denied the fact that the monthly salary of deceased was
Rs.12,000/-, however, there is no such denial regarding the averment made by
the owner of the offending vehicle, in his written statement, that the monthly
salary of deceased Haraj Ali was Rs.8,000/-.
21. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Barpeta may not have
been faulted with on relying on the minimum rate of wages fixed by the
Government of Assam for the skilled motor transport workers, had there been
no material on record regarding the monthly salary of the deceased Haraj Ali.
However, in the event of clear admission by the owner of the offending vehicle
in his written statement regarding monthly salary of the deceased Haraj Ali,
same could not have been ignored by the Commissioner, Workmen’s
Compensation, Barpeta while assessing the monthly income of the deceased
Haraj Ali.
22. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of considered opinion that
the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Barpeta committed perversity by
ignoring relevant material on record while assessing the monthly income of the
deceased Haraj Ali. The substantial question of law formulated in this appeal is
Page No. 10/11
accordingly answered.
23. In view of the above discussions, the monthly salary of the deceased
Haraj Ali, at the time of his death, is taken to be Rs.8,000/-, as averred by the
owner of the offending vehicle, in his written statement. The compensation
awarded to the claimants by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation,
Barpeta is accordingly re-calculated as follows: –
(i) 50% of Rs.8,000/- X 209.92= Rs.8,39,680/-
(ii) Addition of Rs.5,000/- as funeral expenses to the above amount under
Section 4(4) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (Rs.8,39,680/- +
Rs.4,000/-) = Rs.8,43,680/-
(iii) Final compensation to be paid to the appellants by the
respondent/Insurance Company= Rs.8,43,680/-.
24. In view of above discussions, the impugned judgment is modified to the
extent that the appellants are entitled to get a compensation amount of
Rs.8,43,680/-along with an interest @ 9% per annum after one month from the
date of passing of the impugned judgment till realization, on account of death of
late Haraj Ali, in the accident arising out of and in the course of his
employment.
25. The respondent/Insurance Company, namely, Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, Bongaigaon Branch is hereby directed to deposit the said
amount before the office of the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation,
Barpeta within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment. Upon
such deposit, the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Barpeta shall
disburse the same to the appellants/claimants after apportioning the same in
Page No. 11/11
the proportion (in percentage) as indicated in the last part of the impugned
judgment.
26. This appeal is accordingly allowed.
27. Send back the records of W.C. Case No. 328/2015 along with a copy of
this judgment to the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Barpeta for
doing the needful.
JUDGE
Abhishek Digitally signed by
Abhishek Prem
Prem Date: 2026.07.20
16:28:12 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant
