On 9th December 2022, the Supreme Court comprising Division Bench Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat observed that “Just Compensation” should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. (Chandramma Vs. Manager, Regional Office, Ncc Limited And Anr.)
Facts of the Case:
The Appellant was engaged in the construction of a government hospital at Bidar, Karnataka. Respondent No. 1 was the contractor and undertook the construction of the upgradation of the hospital building. On 22.07.2015, the Appellant alongwith other laborers were attending to 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.
The appellant sustained d fracture of spinal bone and compound fracture on various part of the body. She was informed by the Doctor that she would not be able to lift any kind of weight through rest of her life. The appellant filed compensation application under Section 10 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs. 20 Lakhs along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of accident.
The appellant was held to be entitled for Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation. So, 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. The appeal was partly awarded and a compensation of Rs.2,19,512/- was awarded. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal was filed.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The counsel for the appellants submitted that “the hon’ble court failed to note that the petitioner suffered spinal injury and the doctor had clearly and categorically observed that professional disability is 100%. The minimum wages as fixed under the Workmen Compensation Act cannot be lower than the actual wages earned by a labourer and that the courts below ought to have granted the compensation on the basis of the actual earning capacity and the appellant is permanently disabled from working as labour at construction sites.
The appellant was doing the construction work and given the injury suffered by the petitioner, she would not be able to do any other work by which she can earn her livelihood, therefore, the granted compensation is inadequate and deserved to be enhanced.”
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents urged that the grant of compensation awarded by the High Court is adequate and requires no interference by this Court.
Observations and Judgment of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed that “the disability report showed that there is Permanent Partial Disability of about 58% of the limb, which corresponds with 26% whole body. There is no dispute that the appellant suffered from disablement of permanent nature. The disablement has incapacitated her from doing the work which she was capable of doing. The said work was of that of a labourer.
Therefore, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was wrong in holding that the disability of the appellant will have to be treated as 20% disability as the work of an appellant involves lifting heavy weights and the appellant has been rendered incapable from doing such work due to her disability.
Hence, the case of the appellant will be covered by the definition of ‘total disablement’, therefore, being 100% disabled. The functional disability of the appellant is liable to be assessed as 100% and, accordingly, the compensation is to be determined. The functional disability of the appellant being 100%, her age being 40 years and income being Rs.8000/-, 60% whereof works out to be Rs.4800/- and applying the multiplier of 184.17, as per Schedule IV of the 1993 Act, the compensation works out to be Rs.8,84,016/-.
Adding an amount of Rs.42,200/- towards medical expenses. We are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not liable to be sustained.” The cases of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, K.Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr and S.Suresh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.& Anr. were referred.
The appeal was allowed and a total compensation of Rs. 9,30,000/- was awarded with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of making the application till the date of actual payment.
Case: Chandramma Vs. Manager, Regional Office, Ncc Limited And Anr.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 9069 Of 2022
Bench: Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Date: December 09, 2022.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :