SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(SC) 921

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KRISHNA MURARI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ
CHANDRAMMA – Appellant
Versus
MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NCC LIMITED – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9069 OF 2022 | arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32347 of 2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shankar Divate
For the Respondents: Mr. Parijat Kishore

The court determined compensation based on actual earning capacity, finding total disability where previous assessments were insufficient, leading to an enhanced award of Rs. 9,30,000.

Headnote:(A) Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 10 - Compensation for injuries leading to permanent partial disablement - Appellant assessed at partial disability later determined as total - Original compensation set aside and enhanced considering functional disability assessed at 100% with just compensation calculated to Rs. 9,30,000/- along with interest of 9% per annum from date of application to payment. (Paras 18, 23, 24)

(B) Compensation Assessment - Courts must take into account the actual impact of disability on earning capacity and ensure just compensation is awarded.

Facts of the case:
The Appellant, a skilled laborer, suffered serious injuries after falling during work at a construction site, leading to permanent disability. After an initial award by the Commissioner, the appeal was filed to enhance compensation based on income and degree of disability.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the original assessment of disability as 20% was incorrect and ruled it to be 100% given the appellant’s incapacity to perform her previous labor role, significantly increasing the compensation due.

Issues: Determination of quantum of compensation related to the degree of permanent partial disability and its impact on earning capacity.

Ratio Decidendi: The assessing body made errors in determining compensation considering the actual earning capacity; permanent disablement resulting in total incapacity to work must be awarded just compensation reflecting that loss. (Paras 19, 20)

Result: Civil appeal allowed with enhanced compensation awarded.

Table of Content
1. appellant's construction site injury led to assessment of disability. (Para 3 , 4)
2. compensation defined under various conditions including partial and total disablement. (Para 11 , 12)
3. determination of 100% disability due to the incapacity to continue previous work. (Para 19)
4. final compensation calculated based on actual capacity for earnings. (Para 23)

JUDGEMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J. Leave Granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against the final order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburgi Bench (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 202250/2017 (WC) filed by the Appellant praying to call for the records and set aside the judgment and award dated 02.06.2017 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Bidar (hereinafter referred to as “Commissioner”) in E.C.A No. 12/2016. The High Court partly allowed the appeal of the Appellant and assessed the income as Rs.8000/- per month and accordingly computed the compensation at Rs. 2,19,512/-.

3. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows:

3.1 The Appellant was engaged in the construction of government hospital at Bidar, Karnataka. Respondent No. 1 was the contractor and undertook the construction of upgradation of the hospital building. On 22.07.2015, Appellant along with other laborers were attending the work of shifting the cement from ground floor to the second floor, the centering plate collapsed on the head of the appellant who fell down from second floor to the ground floor.

3.2 Subsequently, the appellant was taken to the hospital wherein it was established that she has sustained fracture of spinal bone and compound fracture on various part of the body. After preliminary treatment at government hospital at Bidar, the Appellant went to Gurupadappa Nagmarpalli Hospital and was admitted as inpatient. The appellant was informed by the Doctor that she would not be able to lift any kind of weight through rest of her life.

4. The appellant filed compensation application being E.C.A No. 12/2016 under Section 10 of Employees Compensation Act , 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “1923 Act”) before the Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs. 20 Lakhs along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of accident. Vide judgment and award dated 02.06.2017, the Commissioner held that the Appellant has not proved that she was paid Rs. 600 per day as cooli and accordingly computed notional income at Rs.6000/- per month. Further, it was held that the disability to the whole body is at 20% and as such assessed the compensation at Rs.1,32,600/-. Accordingly, the Appellant was held to be entitled for Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation.

5. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed an Appeal under Section 30(1) of the 1923 Act before the High Court praying to call for the records and set aside the judgment and award dated 02.06.2017. Vide final order dated 07.08.2018, the High Court partly allowed the appeal. The Operative portion of the order reads as under: -

    “Heard both the learned counsel. The relationship between the employee and employer has not been disputed. The only grounds taken by the counsel for the employee is in respect of income.
    Though it was the case that the income of Rs. 8,000/- is to be accepted, the same is disbelieved and the commissioner has assessed the income at Rs. 6,000/- per month which is lower in side. Though it is claimed that the respondent has not seriously disputed the income of the claimant, under these circumstances, the claimants are entitled for enhanced income of Rs. 8,000/-. Accordingly, same is to be assessed. As per Section 4(1)(b) of the Employees Compensation Act 1993, 60% of the monthly wages of injured employee has to be multiplied by relevant factor 184.17 which is applicable to the age of 40 years. Accordingly, calculation is Rs. 8,000/- X 60% = Rs. 4,800/-. Hence Rs. 4,800 X 184.17 which come






                                                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                                1
                                                2
                                                3
                                                4
                                                5
                                                6
                                                7
                                                8
                                                9
                                                10
                                                11
                                                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                                                supreme today icon
                                                logo-black

                                                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                                                Please visit our Training & Support
                                                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                                                qr

                                                Scan Me!

                                                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                                                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                                                whatsapp-icon Back to top