Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Krishna Murari, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
Chandramma - Appellant(s)
Versus
Manager, Regional Office, NCC Limited and Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9069 of 2022 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32347 of 2018)
Decided On : 09-12-2022
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – Sections 3 and 10 – Injury in course of employment – Quantum of compensation – High Court assessed income of appellant as Rs.8000/- per month and accordingly computed compensation at Rs. 2,19,512/- – Appellant has sustained fracture of spinal bone and compound fracture on various part of body – Ideally, compensation should be provided to employees against hazards of employment to which an employee is exposed – This also includes any occupational disease or industrial accident that employee may encounter arising out of or during course of employment which leads to disability or death – Taking type of disability into concern, just compensation should to awarded to person aggrieved – “Just Compensation” should include all elements that would go to place victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before occurrence of accident – Appellant is a skilled labour – Negligence of Contractor led to appellant’s permanent partial disablement and she will not be able to do anything manually – Disability report showed that there is Permanent Partial Disability of about 58% of the limb which corresponds with 26% whole body – Appellant can no longer pursue work of a labourer – Functional disability of appellant being 100%, her age being 40 years and income being Rs.8000/-, 60% whereof works out to be Rs.4800/- and applying multiplier of 184.17, as per Schedule IV of 1993 Act, compensation works out to be Rs.8,84,016/- – Adding amount of Rs.42,200/- towards medical expenses, total compensation works out to be Rs. 9,30,000/- – Appellant shall also be entitled for payment of 9% interest. (Paras 3.2, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Issue involved in instant matter primarily relates to the determination of quantum of compensation awarded under various heads by the Commissioner and High Court.
Findings of Court:
Respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to appellant along with 9% interest, calculated from the date of making of the application till the date of payment within six weeks from today.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Krishna Murari, J.
Leave Granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the final order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburgi Bench (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 202250/2017 (WC) filed by the Appellant praying to call for the records and set aside the judgment and award dated 02.06.2017 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Bidar (hereinafter referred to as “Commissioner”) in E.C.A No. 12/2016. The High Court partly allowed the appeal of the Appellant and assessed the income as Rs.8000/-per month and accordingly computed the compensation at Rs. 2,19,512/-.
3. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows:
3.1 The Appellant was engaged in the construction of government hospital at Bidar, Karnataka. Respondent No. 1 was the contractor and undertook the construction of upgradation of the hospital building. On 22.07.2015, Appellant along with other laborers were attending the work of shifting the cement from ground floor to the second floor, the centering plate collapsed on the head of the appellant who fell down from second floor to the ground floor.
3.2 Subsequently, the appellant was taken to the hospital wherein it was established that she has sustained fracture of spinal bone and compound fracture on various part of the body. After preliminary treatment at government hospital at Bidar, the Appellant went to Gurupadappa Nagmarpalli Hospital and was admitted as inpatient. The appellant was informed by the Doctor that she would not be able to lift any kind of weight through rest of her life.
4. The appellant filed compensation application being E.C.A No. 12/2016 under Section 10 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “1923 Act”) before the Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs. 20 Lakhs along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of accident. Vide judgment and award dated 02.06.2017, the Commissioner held that the Appellant has not proved that she was paid Rs. 600 per day as cooli and accordingly computed notional income at Rs.6000/-per month. Further, it was held that the disability to the whole body is at 20% and as such assessed the compensation at Rs.1,32,600/-. Accordingly, the Appellant was held to be entitled for Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation.
5. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed an Appeal under Section 30(1) of the 1923 Act before the High Court praying to call for the records and set aside the judgment and award dated 02.06.2017. Vide final order dated 07.08.2018, the High Court partly allowed the appeal. The Operative portion of the order reads as under: -
“Heard both the learned counsel. The relationship between the employee and employer has not been disputed. The only grounds taken by the counsel for the employee is in respect of income. Though it was the case that the income of Rs. 8,000/-is to be accepted, the same is disbelieved and the commissioner has assessed the income at Rs. 6,000/-per month which is lower in side. Though it is claimed that the respondent has not seriously disputed the income of the claimant, under these circumstances, the claimants are entitled for enhanced income of Rs. 8,000/-. Accordingly, same is to be assessed. As per Section 4(1)(b) of the Employees Compensation Act 1993, 60% of the monthly wages of injured employee has to be multiplied by relevant factor 184.17 which is applicable to the age of 40 years. Accordingly, calculation is Rs. 8,000/-X 60% = Rs. 4,800/-. Hence Rs. 4,800 X 184.17 which comes to Rs.8,86,560/-. PW2 the doctor’s evidence is that injured suffered 20% disability to the whole body and Tribunal assessed the disability at 20%. Hence the calculation is Rs.8,86,560 X 20%, which comes to Rs.1,77,312/-and same is awarded. Order of the E.C. Commissioner stands modified. Enhance
The insurer under the Workmen’s Compensation Act cannot be held liable from the date of the accident if the claim is filed later, with compensation reflecting permanent functional disability assessed....
(1) It is functional disability and not just physical disability which is determining factor in assessing whether claimant-workman has incurred total disablement.(2) If disablement incurred in an acc....
Functional incapacity determines total disablement, overriding medical assessments if it incapacitates work ability.
A workman dedicated to a specific job, such as a driver, may claim 100% loss of earning capacity under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act if an injury prevents the workman from performing the job he was ....
Functional disability, not just physical impairment percentage, determines loss of earning capacity for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act.
The assessment of personal injury compensation must fairly reflect the gravity of injuries, ongoing disabilities, and the impact on earning capacity post-accident, as established in the Motor Vehicle....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
