Supreme Court Of India: Compensation For Laborer's Work-Related Injury.pdf

# REPORTABLE

## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

### CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9069 OF 2022

(arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32347 of 2018)

## CHANDRAMMA

... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NCC LIMITED AND ANR.

JUDGMENT

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”). The High Court partly allowed the appeal of the Appellant and assessed the income as Rs.8,000/- per month and accordingly computed the compensation at Rs. 2,19,512/.

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

3.1 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 building's upgradation. On 22.07.2015, while shifting cement from the ground floor to the second floor, the centering plate collapsed, causing the Appellant to fall from the second floor to the ground.

3.2 Subsequently, the Appellant was taken to a hospital where it was confirmed that she had suffered fractures in her spinal bone and multiple compound fractures on various parts of her body. After initial treatment at the government hospital in Bidar, she was admitted as an inpatient at Gurupadappa Nagmarpalli Hospital. The doctor informed the Appellant that she would not be able to lift any weight for the rest of her life.

4. The Appellant filed a compensation application (ECA No. 12/2016) under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “1923 Act”), before the Commissioner seeking Rs. 20 Lakhs in compensation along with an interest rate of 18% per annum from the date of the accident.

5. By judgment and award dated 02.06.2017, the Commissioner held that the Appellant had not proved she was paid Rs. 600 per day as a cooli and thus computed her notional income at Rs. 6,000/- per month. Further, it was determined that the whole body disability was 20%, assessing the compensation at Rs. 1,32,600/. The Commissioner held the Appellant entitled to receive Rs. 1,75,000/ as compensation.

6. Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed 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.

7. The High Court, in its final order dated 07.08.2018, partly allowed the appeal. The relevant portion of the order states:

"Though it was established 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. ... Under these circumstances, the Appellants are entitled to an enhanced income of Rs. 8,000/... As per Section 4(1)(b) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1993, 60% of the monthly wages of the injured employee must be multiplied by a relevant factor of 184.17 applicable to the age of 40 years. ... Calculation is Rs. 8,000/- X 60% = Rs. 4,800/... PW2, the doctor's evidence confirms that the Appellant suffered a 20% whole body disability, and the Tribunal assessed this at 20%. ... The calculation is Rs. 8,86,560 X 20%, which comes to Rs. 1,77,312/... The enhanced amount carries interest. ... In total, the compensation would be Rs. 2,19,512/..."

8. We have heard arguments from Mr. Shankar Divate, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, and Mr. Parijat Kishore, Learned Counsel for the Respondents.

9. Mr. Divate submitted that the Courts below overlooked the fact that the Appellant suffered a spinal injury and that the doctor explicitly stated a 100% professional disability. He further argued that minimum wages as per the Workmen Compensation Act cannot be lower than actual earnings, and the courts should have granted compensation based on the Appellant's actual earning capacity. Given her permanent disability, he contended, any other outcome would be inadequate.

10. In contrast, Mr. Kishore urged that the High Court's compensation award is adequate and does not require this Court's interference.

Decision:

After careful consideration of the arguments and a review of the records, we find merit in the Appellant's contentions. The High Court erred in its assessment of the Appellant's income and subsequent calculation of her compensation. The 1923 Act mandates that compensation be based on the actual earnings of the workman or a notional amount if actual earnings cannot be determined. In this case, the Commissioner correctly computed the notional income at Rs. 6,000/- per month due to the unavailability of evidence regarding the Appellant's actual daily earnings as a cooli. However, the High Court erred in increasing this to Rs. 8,000/ without any supporting evidence or reasoning.

The award of Rs. 2,19,512/- for permanent partial disability is insufficient given the severity and nature of the Appellant's injuries. We remand this matter back to the High Court with directions to refer it to a different Commissioner for a fresh assessment of the Appellant's compensation in accordance with the principles laid down in the 1923 Act, taking into account her permanent disability and actual or notional income.