The court ruled that compensation for injuries must reflect the claimant's skill level and applicable minimum wages, leading to a significant enhancement in the awarded amount.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh in FAO No. 4283 of 2017 between the self-same parties which in turn was filed against findings returned by judgment and order dated 11.01.2017 in MACT Case No.299/13.11.2014.

3. The claimant-appellant, on 27.09.2014 while riding his motorcycle along with his son Dilpreet Singh, who was the pillion rider suffered a collision with the vehicle of the respondent no.1 bearing registration no. PB-12- R(T)7535 and suffered injuries in right arm and leg as well as other parts of the body. An FIR bearing no.178/2014 u/Ss 279, 337, 338 and 427 of IPC 1860 was registered at P.S. Chamkaur Sahib, District Rup Nagar. As a result of the injuries suffered, he underwent surgery and treatment at PGI, Chandigarh and subsequently at Sangh Hospital, Ropar. Ultimately, his right arm was amputated on 21.10.2014.

4. A true copy of the Claim Petition is Annexure P-2. Compensation claimed was to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- with an additional Rs.4,00,000/- spent on treatment. By an award dated 11.01.2017 the learned MACT granted compensation totalling Rs.6,84,582/-. The Insurance Company of Respondent No.1 was directed to pay the said amount within two months of the award, failing which interest shall be payable at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.

5. Both the parties preferred appeals before the High Court, which were disposed by the common impugned judgment. In the appeal by the present appellant, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,26,600/-. The itemized break-down of this amount is as under: -

6. Further aggrieved by this determination, the claimant-appellant is before us. The Tribunal took the earning of the claimant-appellant as Rs.5000/- per month, whereas in the claim petition, the monthly income of the claimant-appellant has been shown as Rs.25,000/-. A perusal of the award shows that however little, if any, discussion had been made as to the source of livelihood of the claimant-appellant who was apparently a carpenter. That being the case, we have no option but to take, for the purposes of calculation the minimum wages as prevalent during the relevant time issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Punjab.

7. A carpenter is somebody who uses wood and constructs objects for daily use or beauty or in certain countries even housing. A normal person who is not trained in the craft certainly cannot undertake these activities with the level of precision that is required. It would be unfair then, to classify a carpenter as an unskilled worker. We may also notice observations of this Court in State of Orissa v. Adwait Charan Mohanty 1995 Supp (1)SCC 470, wherein while speaking of the definition of an artisan reference has been to the Blacks Law Dictionary which terms an artisan as a person who is skilled in a trade, craft or art requiring manual dexterity. In the examples given thereunder, features the word ‘carpenter’. Further, in Neeta v. Maharashtra SRTC (2015) 3 SCC 590 it was observed that carpentry is a skilled job.

8. That being the case, the minimum wages as applied to skilled persons is to be taken for the purpose of calculation of compensation, as on the relevant date would be Rs.8337.10. The percentage of disability is 74%. The calculation would now be as under:-