Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. – Appellant
Versus
VINODKUMAR S/O.PAZHANAN ALIAS VASUDEVAN – Respondent
MFA (ECC) NO.21 OF 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.DEEPA GEORGE
For the Respondents: SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM, SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
Compensation for employment injuries must adhere to percentage of loss established in the statutory schedule.
Headnote:The Court analyzed the provisions under Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, concerning the percentage of loss of earning capacity defined in Schedule I. The appellant contested the Commissioner's calculation of 25% loss, asserting that a specific injury to the middle finger warrants a fixed rate of 12%. The Court concurred with the appellant's argument, clarifying that the percentage in the Schedule must govern compensation. The appeal was thus allowed, adjusting the awarded amount accordingly.
J U D G M E N T
The question of law arising for consideration in this case is as to whether the Commissioner can grant compensation ignoring the percentage of earning capacity provided in Schedule I for injuries specifically included in the Schedule.
2. In an employment injury, the 1st respondent/
claimant lost his right middle finger. The learned Commissioner reckoned the loss of earning capacity as 25% to calculate the compensation payable. There is no dispute with respect to any other aspect and the appellant confines the challenge to the percentage of loss of earning capacity. In Schedule I of the Employees Compensation Act , 1923, loss of whole of middle finger is mentioned under Sl.No.31. Percentage of loss of earning capacity is fixed as 12. In view of the provisions of Section 4 of the , 1923, if the injury is specifically included in the Schedule, compensation can be granted only in accordance with the percentage of loss of earning capacity provided in the Schedule. Therefore the question of law can be answered only in favour of the appellant. The Commissioner went wrong in adopting 25% as the percentage of loss of earning capacity. In the nature of the injury suffered by the claimant, 12% was the correct percentage ought to have been taken into account for the purpose of calculating the compensation. Accordingly the compensation payable shall be as follows:
3600 x 60/100 x 207.98 x 12/100 = Rs.53,908.4 (rounded to Rs.53,908/-). The amount will carry interest @12% from the date of accident. The appeal is thus disposed of answering the question of law in favour of the appellant and modifying the compensation granted as above.
The Commissioner shall release the amount due to the claimant as per this judgment within a period of one month and if any balance is remaining, that shall be refunded to the appellant.
