The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation can award compensation beyond the amount claimed, reflecting a statutory duty to ensure just compensation based on actual wages, overriding limitations posed by government notifications.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANU, J.

1. Appellant was the opposite party in E.C.C.No.34/2017 before the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, Alappuzha. The respondent was a Lineman Grade-II in Kumily Electrical Section under the appellant. On 4.4.2015, when the respondent and some other employees were engaged in replacing an old electric post, the post fell on the shoulder of the respondent resulting in a severe injury to his spinal cord. An amount of Rs.7,17,696/- was deposited by the appellant as compensation. The respondent approached the Commissioner, discontented with the amount deposited by the appellant. The appellant contended that it had deposited the compensation before the Tribunal and in addition to the same sanctioned an amount of Rs.4,56,445/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses. It also extended the benefits under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995. Taking into account the disability of the respondent, he was accommodated in a supernumerary post with all service benefits. Under such circumstances, there was no loss of earning to the respondent. Therefore, the appellant prayed that the application for compensation was liable to be rejected. In his rejoinder, the respondent contended that the compensation deposited by the appellant was inadequate. The respondent is suffering from paraplegia and is bedridden. He therefore contended that the compensation ought to have been calculated treating the loss of earning capacity as 100%.

2. The respondent was examined as AW1 and a doctor was examined as AW2 before the Commissioner. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the respondent.

3. The learned Commissioner held that the benefits granted under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 would not preclude the respondent from claiming benefits under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. It was also found that the disability had to be accepted as 100%.

4. Relying on the judgment of this Court in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited v. Sushama Kumari, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 1564, the Commissioner fixed the compensation on the basis of the actual monthly wages of the respondent. Interest at the rate of 12% was granted for the period from the date of the accident till the date of deposit of the admitted amount by the appellant. The compensation payable was fixed as Rs.24,52,950/-. Subtracting the amount in deposit, the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.17,35,254/- along with interest. Aggrieved by this order, the instant appeal has been filed.

5. The following substantial questions of law have been raised in this appeal:-

“i) Can the Commissioner for Employees Compensation suo-moto award compensation far beyond the request made by the applicant?

ii) Whether the Commissioner is justified in disregarding notification issued by Central Government under Sec 4(1B) and taking recourse to Sec 5 of the Employees Compensation Act while awarding amount of compensation?

iii) Whether, in the light of facts involved in the case and on a correct interpretation of Sections 4 (1), 4(1B) and Section 5 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, an employee is entitled to get compensation reckoning any amount beyond the monthly wages fixed by the Central Government invoking its power under Section 4 (1B) of the Employees’ compensation Act, 1923?

iv) Whether the decision rendered by this Hon’ble Court in MFA(ECC)