Mason Classified as ‘Skilled Worker’ in Government Notice: Jharkhand High Court Increases Motor Accident Compensation.
The Jharkhand High Court increased the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to a mason, stating that he should be classified as ‘skilled labor’ according to the Jharkhand Minimum Wage Notification, not ‘semi-skilled.’ The Court reviewed an appeal against the decision made by the District Judge-I-cum P.O.M.A.C.T. in a Motor Accident Claim Case. Justice Subhash Chand noted, “The claimants filed this Misc. Appeal because they disagreed with the compensation amount. The Tribunal recognized the deceased as a mason but categorized him as semi-skilled labor. Therefore, the wages set by the Tribunal were based on semi-skilled rates, while the mason should be considered skilled labor according to the Government Notification. The wages should reflect skilled labor rates.”
The Appellant was represented by Advocate Nikhil Ranjan, while Advocate Mukesh Kumar Dubey represented the Respondent. The Appellant challenged the compensation amount, arguing that the Tribunal incorrectly classified the mason as semi-skilled. Consequently, the wages determined were too low, as the mason should be recognized as skilled labor. Additionally, the deceased’s parents did not receive compensation for loss of consortium. In response, the Respondent’s Counsel strongly opposed the Appellant’s claims, asserting that the Tribunal’s assessment was correct and did not require any changes.
The Court acknowledged that the Tribunal classified the deceased as a mason, but assessed his income as a semi-skilled worker based on the Jharkhand Minimum Wage Notification effective from October 1, 2019, under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Government of Jharkhand had set the minimum wages and variable dearness allowance starting from that date, as the accident occurred on December 27, 2019. For 2019, the minimum wage for a semi-skilled worker was set at Rs. 7008.14 per month, rounded to Rs. 7,000. The Court noted that the Gazette Notification categorizes masons as skilled workers, with a monthly minimum wage of Rs. 9238. Therefore, the Tribunal’s assessment of the deceased’s income as Rs. 7,000 was incorrect and needed adjustment since a mason is considered a skilled worker.
The Court also referenced the important ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and recalculated the deceased’s income accordingly. It stated that the amount for conventional damages was not contested by the appellant and would remain as awarded by the Tribunal. Additionally, the Court ruled that Claimants/Appellants No. 5 and 6 are entitled to both parental and filial consortium for the loss of their son.
The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Janabai WD/o Dinkar Rao Ghorpade v. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard Insurance Company Ltd. 2022. It stated that the parents of the deceased, who are Claimants No. 5 and 6 in the Claim Petition, are entitled to a parental and filial consortium amount of Rs. 40,000. Additionally, based on the ruling in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi 2017(16) SCC 680, this amount should increase by 10% every three years, which will apply in December 2022. Therefore, the parental consortium amount of Rs. 44,000 will be included in the total compensation. The Appeal was partially granted.
Cause Title: Shakuntala Devi vs. .M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd.
