Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J.
Sumeshan Pn, S/o. Mukundan – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, KSRTC – Respondent
Mfa (Ecc) No. 46 of 2023
Decided On : 29-05-2026
For the Appellant : Sri.Deepak Raj
For the Respondent: Shri.C.Sivanundan Sri.S.K.Ajay Kumar, Adv., Deepu Thankan, Sc
When evidence of actual monthly wages is presented in compensation claims, the Commissioner must determine compensation based on actual wages rather than limiting it to the government-notified minimum wage under S.4(1B) of the Employees Compensation Act.
Headnote:The case involves a claim for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, where the claimant/Appellant, a driver, sought enhanced compensation for injuries suffered during employment. The Industrial Tribunal limited the compensation amount by capping monthly wages at the statutory government-notified rate, ignoring the Appellant's evidence regarding actual higher wages. This Court held that S.5 allows for the calculation of compensation based on actual wages when proven, and the government-notified rate under S.4(1B) is intended as a mandatory minimum rather than a cap, favoring a harmonious construction of the provisions. The central issue was whether the Commissioner erred in law by capping the claimant's monthly wages at the government-notified rate instead of accepting the actual wages evidenced by a salary certificate. The Ratio Decidendi establishes that the Act is social welfare legislation; therefore, where actual wages are proven, they must be used to calculate just compensation, ensuring that industrial employees receive benefits commensurate with their actual income, preventing the notification under S.4(1B) from being misinterpreted as a restrictive ceiling. The final outcome is that the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, with directives to take into account the proven monthly wages and allow for the amendment of the claim to include subsequent medical expenses for procedural surgery.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts regarding injury and initial compensation claim. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. determining actual wages based on harmonious construction of s.4(1b) and s.5. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. permission to amend claims for subsequent medical treatment costs. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT :
S.MANU, J.
Claimant in E.C.C No.34 of 2021 on the files of the Industrial Tribunal and Employees Compensation Commissioner has filed this M.F.A dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Commissioner by the impugned order.
2. The appellant is employed as a driver under the 1st respondent. On 26.04.2019, while he was driving a bus of the 1st respondent bearing Registration No.KL-15A-321, it collided with another bus owned by the 1st respondent and he sustained severe injuries. He was admitted to a private Hospital on 26.04.2019 and was subjected to different surgical procedures. He was discharged on 03.05.2019 but was again admitted on 07.05.2019 for a surgery. He was discharged on the same day and later again underwent a surgical procedure on 14.05.2019. Yet another surgery procedure was done on 23.05.2019. Still later on 15.06.2020 he was admitted for another procedure and was discharged on 17.06.2020. The appellant claimed that his monthly wages was Rs.28,000/-. He sought a total compensation of Rs.6,57,174/-.
3. The 1st respondent admitted employer employee relationship in its written statement filed before the Commissioner. The accident was also admitted. The KSRTC contended that the vehicle was validly insured with the 2nd respondent and therefore the 2nd respondent was liable to pay compensation. The 2nd respondent admitted insurance coverage. However, it denied employer employee relationship.
4. The learned Commissioner framed four issues for consideration. The applicant was examined as AW1 and Exhibits A1 to A8 were marked on his side. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The learned Commissioner on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence concluded that there was employer employee relationship and the appellant suffered injuries arising out of employment during the course of his employment under the 1st respondent. The learned Commissioner held that the appellant was entitled for compensation. However, the learned Commissioner, in paragraph no.8 of the impugned order, recorded that though the applicant claimed that he was drawing a monthly wages of Rs.28,000/-, in the absence of any document to prove the same and also in view of the Central Government notification dated 31.05.2010, the monthly wages of the appellant can be reckoned only as Rs.8000/- for the purpose of calculating compensation. The compensation was accordingly fixed at Rs.1,87,764/-.
5. The appellant had produced Exhibit A7 (series) medical bills before the learned Commissioner. The total treatment expenses as per Exhibit A7 was Rs.5,31,395/-. The learned Commissioner held that the appellant was entitled for the treatment expenses also.
6. In the instant appeal, the main ground of challenge and also the substantial question of law raised on behalf of the appellant is as to whether the finding of the learned Commissioner that the monthly wages of the appellant was liable to be reckoned as Rs.8,000/- instead of his actual monthly wages is proper or not. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on an order of this Court in Chairman and Managing Director, KSEB v. Sudhish P.S , [2026 (2) KLT 621]. In the said decision, this Court held as under:-
“33. The Act is unquestionably a social welfare legislation providing for remedies to employees who sustain injuries out of the employment and during the course of the employment to get adequate compensation. If an employee who draws monthly wages at a higher rate than that is notified by the Central Government under S.4(1B) is deprived of compensation proportionate to his actual monthly wages, it cannot be said that just compensation was provided.
34. If the provisions of S.4(1B) and S.5 of the Act
