Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shaikh Salim Ramzan, was employed as a driver by respondent no. 1, Ashok Beniram Kothawade, on a Maruti Van bearing registration No. MH-18/S-1854. On 4 June 2005, while driving on Tarabad-Satana road, a Qualis vehicle coming from the opposite side collided with his van, causing multiple injuries including total loss of vision in his right eye. The appellant filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at Dhule seeking Rs. 3,11,970/- as compensation, claiming a monthly salary of Rs. 3,500/- and 100% disability. Respondent no. 1 admitted the employment but stated the salary was Rs. 3,000/- per month. Respondent no. 2, the insurance company, denied the claim. The Commissioner, by judgment and award dated 24 June 2009, partly allowed the application and granted Rs. 77,107/-, assessing disability at 30% and income at Rs. 3,000/- per month. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court held that the loss of one eye constitutes 100% loss of vision in that eye and should be treated as 100% disability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Schedule I. The court also accepted the employer's admission of Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income. Applying the relevant factor of 207.98 for a 30-year-old, the compensation was calculated as 60% of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. 1,800/-) multiplied by 207.98, totaling Rs. 3,74,364/-, rounded to Rs. 3,74,000/-. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Commissioner's award, and directed respondent no. 2 to pay the enhanced compensation with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident until realization.
Headnote
A) Workmen's Compensation - Assessment of Disability - Loss of Eye Sight - The appellant suffered total loss of vision in his right eye due to an accident during employment. The Commissioner assessed disability at 30% based on a medical certificate, but the High Court held that loss of one eye constitutes 100% loss of vision in that eye and should be considered as 100% disability for the purpose of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, relying on Schedule I of the Act. (Paras 8-10) B) Workmen's Compensation - Determination of Monthly Income - Employer's Admission - The appellant claimed monthly income of Rs. 3,500/-, but the employer admitted Rs. 3,000/- in his written statement. The High Court held that the employer's admission is binding and the income should be taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month for computing compensation. (Para 11) C) Workmen's Compensation - Computation of Compensation - Multiplier - For a workman aged 30 years, the relevant factor under Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is 207.98. Compensation calculated as 60% of monthly income (Rs. 1,800/-) multiplied by 207.98, resulting in Rs. 3,74,364/-, rounded to Rs. 3,74,000/-. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner erred in assessing the disability of the appellant at 30% instead of 100% and in determining the monthly income at Rs. 3,000/- instead of Rs. 3,500/- for computing compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dhule, dated 24/06/2009 is set aside. Respondent no. 2, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,74,000/- (rounded off) to the appellant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident until realization. The amount already paid, if any, shall be deducted.
Law Points
- Workmen's Compensation
- Assessment of Disability
- Loss of Eye Sight
- Income Determination
- Employer's Admission
