HARIKRISHNAN Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

(2.) This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 17.12.2013 passed in W.C.No.266 of 2007 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai fixing a compensation of Rs.2,18,086/- without granting interest at the rate of 12% per annum on and from 31 st day of the accident.

(3.) Mrs.A.Subadra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, placing three arguments, prayed this court to allow the civil miscellaneous appeal. Firstly, she contended that when the claimant Mr.Harikrishnan was working as loadman in the Tata 407 van bearing Registration No.TN-04-L-4288 belonging to the opposite party, on 17.11.2006 at about 8.10 hours, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, who lost control of the van, resultantly, the van capsized and consequently, the appellant sustained grievous injuries, namely, Grade IIIB compound fracture in right leg both bones and multiple injuries all over the body. Therefore, he was rushed to the Government General Hospital, Chennai, wherein he was taking treatment from 17.11.2006 till 29.11.2006. During that time, he was treated for wound debridement and external fixation. Again he was advised to come back to hospital on 29.1.2007 for fibular grafting. Thereafter, he was admitted as inpatient on 23.7.2007 and underwent surgery on 22.8.2007 and got discharged on 25.8.2007, as per the discharge certificate produced before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, continuing her arguments, submitted that the appellant being a loadman sustained grievous injuries and also underwent ihzarov bone transplant. That shows that the appellant has permanently lost his earning capacity. However, when 60% disability has been fixed, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, without even appreciating that the appellant sustained multiple injuries and has lost his earning capacity permanently, reduced the disability to 50%, which is unjustified, for the reason that the injured appellant had sustained fracture on his right leg and multiple injuries and for which, all the time, he was residing in the hospital, as per the discharge summary, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai should have fixed 100% disability. In support of her contention, she has also relied upon Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for the proposition that when permanent disablement has resulted from the injuries, the disability should be assessed at 100%, which has not been done by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai, as a result, small amount of compensation has been awarded. Secondly, when the accident took place on 17.11.2006, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, without considering the fact that the appellant has claimed Rs.4,000/- as the monthly wages, as per the notification issued by the Central Government stipulating the maximum wages, that came into effect from 8.12.2000, has wrongly fixed the wages at Rs.3,689/-, as a result, the appellant, who has lost his right leg permanently, has been paid with an unreasonable small amount of compensation, with which he will not be able to lead the rest of his life. Thirdly, when interest on the quantum of compensation has not been awarded, as per Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which says that the interest on the compensation payable will accrue from the 31st day of the accident, but in the present case, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai, while allowing the claim petition, generally directed the insurance company to pay interest only if the compensation amount is not deposited within 30 days of the order, which is contrary to Section 4-A(3) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.