In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9069 OF 2022-SC- Under Workmen's Compensation Act, employers have to pay compensation to their employees for work-related accident, fatality, injury or illness, holds Apex Court while directing Insurance Company to pay enhanced compensation as functional disability of  labourer was assessed as 100% 
Justices Krishna Murari & S. Ravindra  Bhat [09-12-2022]

Read Order: CHANDRAMMA v. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NCC LIMITED AND ANR 

Mansimran Kaur

New Delhi, December 10, 2022: The Supreme Court has opined that the objective of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 Act is to enable employees and their dependents to get compensation from their employers in case an accident causes an employee's death or disability and the Act also mandates employers to pay compensation to their workers if they contract certain job-related illnesses or diseases.

The Division bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra  Bhat allowed the present appeal  directed against the final order dated August  7, 2018 passed by the High Court of Karnataka filed by the Appellant praying to call for the records and set aside the judgment passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Bidar.

The bench was of the view that 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.

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/-. 

Facts in brief for adjudication of the present appeal were that the appellant was engaged in the construction of a government hospital at Bidar, Karnataka. The first respondent was the contractor and undertook the construction of the hospital building. On July 22, 2015, the appellant along with other laborers were attending the work of shifting the cement from ground floor to the second floor, and then the centering plate collapsed on the head of the appellant who fell down from second floor to the ground floor.

Subsequently, the appellant was taken to the hospital wherein it was established that she had sustained fracture of spinal bone and compound fracture on various parts of the body. 

 The appellant filed a compensation application being E.C.A No. 12/2016 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. Vide judgment and award dated June 2, 2017, the Commissioner held that the appellant had  not proved that she was paid Rs. 600 per day as coolie 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.

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. Vide final order, the High Court partly allowed the appeal.In pursuance of the same, the present appeal was instituted. 

After considering the submissions, the Court noted that Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, it is mandatory for the employers to pay compensation to their employees or workmen for a work-related accident, fatality, injury, or illness. 

“The Objective of the 1923 Act is two-fold. First, it enables employees and their dependents to get compensation from their employers in case an accident causes an employee's death or disability; second, it mandates employers to pay compensation to their workers if they contract certain job-related illnesses or diseases”, the Court noted. 

Reference was made to the case of  Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another.

In furtherance of the same, the Court noted that in the case at hand, the appellant was  a skilled labour, who was involved in the work of construction of hospital building. On July 22, 2015,  the appellant fell down from second floor to ground floor when the centering plate collapsed on her head. It was mentioned that doctors who treated the appellant have held that she sustained fracture of spinal bone and compound fracture on various parts of the body. 

It was opined that the appellant was suffering from permanent partial disablement which also implied that she will not be able to do anything manually such as unloading building materials or using hand tools like shovels or picks or operating other machinery. 

here was no dispute that the appellant suffered from disablement of permanent nature. The disablement had incapacitated her from doing the work which she was capable of doing. The said work was that of a laborer. 

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 Court further remarked. 

Further reliance was placed on the case of  S.Suresh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.& Anr.

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, the Bench held.

Adding an amount of Rs.42,200 towards medical expenses for which the bills were presented, the total compensation was rounded off to Rs. 9,30,000. The appellant was also held to be entitled for payment of interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of making the application till the date of actual payment. Thus, the Top Court allowed the civil appeal.