SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 818

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ALTAMAS KABIR and A.K. PATNAIK
PALRAJ ... APPELLANT
VS.
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC... RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7430 OF 2010
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.10416 2008)
Decided on : 07.09.2010

Headnote:Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 4 and 30 - Injury in course of employment - Appellant suffered 65% of total body disability and 20% of functional disability - Loss of earning capacity is commensurate to injuries suffered and loss of earning capacity as a result thereof - Appellant has lost his capacity to function as a driver, but with help of external aids his mobility has to some extent been restored - Injury suffered by Appellant did not disable him permanently from earning his living other than as a driver - Percentage of functional disablement modified from 20% to 35%. (Paras 9, 10, 14, 18 and 19)

       Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 4A - Interest under 1923 Act cannot be claimed from date of filing of application, but only after a default is committed in respect of payment of compensation within 30 days from date on which payment becomes due. (Para16)

JUDGMENT

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The sole respondent who is the Divisional Controller, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, being duly represented and having regard to the facts involved in the appeal, the same was taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. The Appellant was employed as a Bus Driver in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. On 10th October, 1998, the vehicle being driven by the Appellant, met with an accident in which he sustained grievous injuries. The Medical Officer who examined the Appellant came to the conclusion that the Appellant had suffered 65% of total body disability and 20% of functional disability. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, however, took 85% as functional disability for quantifying the compensation payable to the Appellant, who was admittedly drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month on the date of the accident.

4. It was also admitted that on account of the injuries suffered by him, the Appellant was no longer able to drive a vehicle and the Corporation accordingly appointed him as a Peon in the Corporation where he is drawing the same salary. Taking the above percentage of disability, both permanent and functional, the Commissioner made an Award granting compensation amounting to Rs.1,75,970/-, together with interest @12% per annum from 10.11.1998 till the date of deposit, to the Appellant.

5. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Commissioner to the Appellant herein, the Corporation through its Divisional Controller filed Misc. First Appeal No.3771 of 2003 in the Karnataka High Court. The only question which was raised in the appeal was whether the percentage of disability taken by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Gulbarga, at 85% was against the weight of medical evidence adduced in the case. The appeal was heard by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court who agreed with the case of the Respondent herein that the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, had erroneously taken 85% to be the extent of disability suffered by the Appellant and that the same ought to have been 20% instead. On such basis, the learned Single Judge modified the Award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, and reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.1,75,970/- together with interest at the @12% per annum, to Rs.41,404.80p. It was also held that the Commissioner had committed an error in awarding interest from the date of filing of the claim petition and the Appellant was entitled to interest on the compensation amount only after 30 days from the date of passing of the Award. The appeal was, accordingly, allowed in part, and the Award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, was modified and reduced from Rs.1,75,970/- to Rs.41,405/- together with interest @12% per annum on the said amount from 30 days after the date of the passing of the Award. The amount which was in deposit before the Court was directed to be transferred to the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Gulbarga, for disbursement. It is the said order of the learned Single Judge, which has been challenged in this appeal.

6. On behalf of the Appellant it was contended that the doctors had certified that the Appellant was 100% disabled as far as his functioning as a Driver was concerned and that his total disability had been found to be 65% while his functional disability was assessed at 20%. Taking the two together the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation had found the Appellant to have acquired 85% disability that entitled him to a sum of Rs.1,75,970/- in accordance with Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by taking his monthly income as Rs.2,000/- in view of Explanation 2 to Section 4 of the above Act and multiplying it with the multiplier of 172.52.

7. Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Senior counsel for the Appellant, also submitted that, in fact, the limit imposed by way of Explanation 2 to Section 4 had been in














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top