Rafeeq vs Mahmuna Patel and Others

Budihal R.B., J.—Appellant/claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.01.2012 passed by the Labour Officer-cum-Commissioner for Workmen Compensation at Bidar in WCA/NFC/CR-04 of 2011 with regard to quantum of compensation so also challenging the legality and correctness of the same, has preferred this appeal.

The appellant has contended in his claim petition that he was working in the lorry belonging to respondent No. 1 and as per his instructions he has loaded the iron tower channels and for the purpose of delivery, the lorry was taken from Hyderabad to Katiyagaon Ahmed. On 10.02.2009 at 9.00 a.m. reached Katiyagaon and stopped the lorry and the workers were unloading the iron tower channels. At that time the said tower channel slipped from the hands of the worker and fell on the right leg of the claimant. Because of that reason, claimant sustained injuries to his right leg and immediately he was taken to the hospital at Ahmedabad Tappan Hospital and admitted. After providing the first aid treatment, appellant was shifted to Dr. Bhupendra Sagar Orthopedic Hospital for better treatment on 16.02.2009 and he was admitted as inpatient. Surgery was conducted in respect of right leg and there was amputation below the knee portion. He has spent Rs. 1,00,000/- for medical expenses and became totally disabled because of the said accident and lost his right leg, and with regard to the said accident, case was registered in Cr. No. 51/2009. Hence, he has claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- stating that he was earning monthly income of Rs. 8,000/- with daily allowance of Rs. 150/- and as there is 100% disability.

The owner of the said vehicle has admitted the averments made by the appellant. But the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company has contested the said petition by filing the objection statement.

Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company has disputed the averments made in the petition that when the workers were unloading the iron tower channels, accidentally it was slipped and fell on the leg of the appellant. It is contended that it is because of the negligence on the part of appellant himself The respondent No. 2/Insurance Company has also challenged the income of the appellant. It is their further contention that the owner of the vehicle has not informed the Insurance Company about he engaging the said driver. Hence, there is violation of insurance policy and hence, sought to dismiss the petition.

The Trial Court after considering the evidence of both the parties, recorded affirmative findings so far as the said incident is concerned. With regard to monthly income of the appellant is concerned, the Labor Court has taken his monthly income at Rs. 4,000/- and his age was considered at 24 years. As per the Workmen''s Compensation Act relevant factor was considered at 221.37 and the disability has been taken at 60%.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the leg has been amputated appellant became 100% disable to do any work. Hence, submitted that disability is to be taken at 100%. But the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/Insurance Company has submitted that, if it is above the knee portion, the claim of the appellant would have been considered at 100%.

Looking to the materials placed on record, it is much below the knee portion and as per the Act, the permissible disability is only 60%. Perusing the materials as well as documents produced in the case, I am of the opinion that monthly income of Rs. 4,000/- taken by the Labour Court is on the lower side and the reasonable earnings per month is to be taken at Rs. 6,000/-. With regard to percentage of disability, the Labour Court has taken 60%, which is reasonable and appropriate. Hence, calculation of compensation:

"= 60% of Income X Relevant factor X percentage of disability = 3600 6000X 60%) X 221.37 X 60% = Rs. 4,78,159/-." Hence, in all, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 4,78,159/-, out of which, the Labour Court has already awarded compensation of Rs. 3,18,773/-. So, the appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,59,386/- (Rs. 4,78,159 - Rs. 3,18,773).

Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Labour Court, Bidar is hereby modified enhancing the compensation by Rs. 1,59,386/-. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company is liable to pay enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,59,386 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident and to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.