Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.
Joji M. George, S/o. M.T. George – Applicant
Versus
Sabu M.I., S/o. Iype M.I. and Anr. – Respondents
MFA (ECC) No. 42 Of 2017
Decided On : 02-05-2025
For the Applicant : Sri. P.M. Joshi, Smt. Siji K. Paul
For the Respondent: VPK. Panicker.
The court held that compensation must be based on actual wages, rejecting unjustified reductions by the CWC.
Headnote:
(A) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 30 - Appeal against compensation order - The applicant, a driver, sustained injuries during employment and sought compensation. The CWC awarded Rs.38,122/-; however, the applicant contended the monthly wage was incorrectly reduced. The court found merit in the appeal, re-fixing the monthly wage at Rs.4,000/- and compensation at Rs.50,830/- with 12% interest. (Paras 3, 7, 9)
(B) Appeal - Scope of review - The High Court's review is limited to substantial questions of law, not factual disputes unless proven perverse. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was injured in an accident while working as a driver, claiming a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-. The CWC awarded compensation based on a reduced salary of Rs.3,000/-, which the applicant contested.
Findings of Court:
The court found the CWC erred in reducing the monthly wage and re-calculated the compensation accordingly.
Issues: The main issue was whether the CWC's order was perverse due to the incorrect computation of the applicant's monthly income.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the CWC's reduction of the applicant's wage lacked justification, emphasizing that compensation should be based on actual wages.
Result: The compensation amount is modified to Rs.50,830/- with 12% interest.
JUDGMENT :
(SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.)
This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 27.05.2011 in WCC No.50 of 2008 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, (Deputy Labour Commissioner), Kottayam. Appellant was the applicant in the WCC and respondents 1 and 2 were the 1st and 2nd opposite parties therein. Parties are here and after referred to as per their status before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (CWC).
2. The applicant was a workman employed by the 1st opposite party as a driver in the autorickshaw owned by him. The applicant suffered bodily injuries in an accident that occurred on 02.09.2006 in the course of and out of his employment with the 1st opposite party.. At the time of accident, he was deriving a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- and was aged 26 years. The applicant sustained fracture on the right inferior and superior pubic rumus and urethral injury. The vehicle was insured with the 2nd opposite party and had a valid policy at the time of the accident. Applicant moved the WCC seeking compensation. After the preliminary inquiry, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties entered in appearance and filed their respective written statements. The 1st opposite party admitted that the applicant was his employee and that the accident had happened during the course of his employment. The 2nd opposite party in the written statement adopted a stand of total denial. The claims of the applicant, his status as a workman under the 1st opposite party, the employer- employee relationship between them, the injury suffered, the disability and the claims regarding the age and monthly wages of the applicant at the time of the accident were denied. The CWC framed six issues and the parties proceeded to tender evidence. From the side of the applicant, AW1 and AW2 were examined and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Exts. R1 and R2 were marked. The CWC, after hearing the parties, held that the 2nd opposite party is liable to indemnify the 1st opposite party. The workmen's compensation payable to the applicant was fixed at Rs.38,122/- together with interest at the rate of 12%. Dissatisfied with the said compensation awarded, the applicant has preferred this appeal.
3. The following substantial question of law is drawn for consideration in this appeal: Whether the order of the CWC impugned herein is perverse and legally unsustainable for the reason that the monthly income of the applicant which was claimed and substantiated with evidence, had been substituted with a different amount, without any reasonable basis and in computing compensation based on the same?
4. Heard Sri.P.M.Joshi, Advocate for the appellant (applicant) and Sri.VPK Panicker, Advocate, for the 2nd respondent (2nd opposite party).
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned order of the CWC is contrary to law, facts and evidence of the case and is hence liable to be modified. It was contended that the CWC ought to have found that the petitioner had substantial injuries as explained Exts. A1 to A3. The CWC failed to note that the permanent disability of the petitioner had been assessed at 10%. The deposition of AW2 doctor who had issued Ext.A6 disability certificate was ignored by the CWC. AW2 had asserted that the fracture caused due to the accident had led to malunion at the joint and that sensory deficit had also been caused. The CWC failed to consider the occupational disability that had been suffered. The applicant suffers from inability to do any work and cannot engage in any task requiring physical exertion. He cannot travel without the help of another person and hence the CWC erred in not granting a 100% loss of earning capacity. Though it had been validly brought out in evidence that the monthly salary of the applicant was Rs.4,000/- at the time of the accident, the CWC, without any valid cause or reason, reduced the same to Rs.3,000/- per month. The computation of the c
