Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
V.T.Suresh Kumar, S/O Thankappan Nair – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, KSRTC - Respondent
MFA.No.140 of 2019
Decided on : 16-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.N.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN
For the Respondent: SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
IMPORTANT POINTS
Even though the Workman's Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 2008, lapsed thereafter, Sub Section 2A of Section 4 was introduced through the Workman's Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 2009 and the statement of objects and reasons for its introduction, which are as excerpted in paragraph No.13 of this judgment, clearly show that it was intended for reimbursement of all medical expenditure incurred by an employee for treatment of his injuries caused during the course of employment.
Headnote:
The Employees Compensation Act, 1923- Sub Section 2-A of Section 4(1)- difference between the concepts of “compensation” and “reimbursement” under the Act, namely that the former is a fixed sum which relates to the date of the accident and the latter being a flexible one, depending upon the medical bills to be produced and established by the claimant, renders the scenario crystally clear; and therefore, the declarations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore cited judgments -that the date of accident is the only one relevant for the purpose of computation of “compensation” under the Act -will not apply to the case of “reimbursement of medical expenses” under Sub Section 2A of Section 4. Axiomatically, the claimant becomes entitled to such reimbursement incurred by him after 18.01.2010.
Statement of facts:
The appellant, who is stated to have been working in the services of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation -Suffered an accident on 09/01/2010, while he was driving one of their buses-He was thus grievously injured, constraining him to eventually resign from their services-He was 34 years at the time of accident; that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- and thus claimed compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. He says that the claim made by him covered not merely the statutory compensation entitled to him under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 but also the amounts suffered by him towards medical expenses, which he claims is also payable to him by his employer under the provisions of Sub Section 2-A of Section 4(1) of the said Act.
Finding of the court:
The impugned order of the Compensation Commissioner, to the extent to which it has denied the claim of the appellant for reimbursement of medical expenses, requires to be interfered by this Court and that a reconsideration of the same becomes necessary and imminent-Direction to the Compensation Commissioner to reconsider the claim of the appellant for reimbursement of actual medical expenditure, after assessing and evaluating the dates on which it had been incurred by him, under the provisions of Sub Section 2A of Section 4 of the Act, leading to a final order, after affording necessary opportunity to both sides.
Result: Appeal Allowed
JUDGMENT :
A very acme issue – appearing to be res nova – has been impelled by the appellant for forensic adjudication and answer by this Court; namely, if an employee is entitled to claim reimbursement of medical expenses for injuries caused in an accident during the course of his employment, even if such accident occurred before 18.01.2010, being the date on which Sub Section 2-A of Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 -which provides for such reimbursement -had been brought into the said Act.
2. The appellant, who is stated to have been working in the services of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC for short), says that he suffered an accident on 09/01/2010, while he was driving one of their buses, bearing registration No.KL-15-6882 attached to the Kilimanoor depot; and that he was thus grievously injured, constraining him to eventually resign from their services.
3. The appellant submits that in the endeavour to avoid a direct collusion with a car travelling from the opposite direction -which was driven recklessly and seen overtaking a lorry carelessly -he had to swerve the bus to the left side, causing it to smash into a tree on the road margin, thus causing him very serious injuries.
4. The appellant asserts that he was 34 years at the time of accident; that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- and thus claimed compensation of Rs.4 lakhs. He says that the claim made by him covered not merely the statutory compensation entitled to him under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) but also the amounts suffered by him towards medical expenses, which he claims is also payable to him by his employer under the provisions of Sub Section 2-A of Section 4(1) of the said Act.
5. The appellant submits that, however, even though the Compensation Commissioner has granted all eligible compensation under Section 4 of the Act, it has refused to grant him the medical reimbursement under Sub Section 2-A of Section 4 of the Act, solely for the reason that the said Section was en-drafted into the Act only on 18/01/2010; while the accident took place on 09/01/2010.
6. The appellant predicates that the Compensation Commissioner is in error in having declined his claim for reimbursement of medical expenses; and consequently prays that the impugned final order, to the extent to which it denies such benefit, be set aside and the Compensation Commissioner be directed to grant him the said benefits also.
7. Shri.N.Sasidharan Unnithan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in substantiation of the afore plea of his client, submitted that Sub Section 2-A of Section 4 of the Act -though included in the Chapter relating to “Compensation” must be construed to be an independent provision which is indented to provide succor to an employee for treatment of injuries caused during the course of employment, be that on account of an accident or on account of an occupational disease, which, in any case is deemed to be an accident within the meaning of Section 3(2) of the Act. He contents that, therefore, every expense for medical treatment incurred by an employee after 18/01/2010 would become payable and the date of accident, which was the cause of the injury would be of no relevance, since the said factor is applicable only in the case of compensation under the Act.
8. Shri.N.Sasidharan Unnithan thus argues that there is a clear distinction between “compensation” under the provisions of the Act and “reimbursement Of medical expenditure”, the latter which has been sanctioned through Sub Section 2-A of Section 4 thereof with effect from 18.1.2010. He thus reiteratingly prays that all medical expenses incurred by his client after 18/01/2010 be declared to be liable to be reimbursed by the employer; and resultantly, that the impugned order, which denies this benefit, be interdicted to that extent.
9. Shri.Ziyad Rahman, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3r
