SUDHEER SETTY v. RAVI

(BY SRI. ABHIRAJ B CHENGTI, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 12.07.2019, PASSED IN ECA. NO.57/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:3544 MFA No. 659 of 2020 HC-KAR THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge an award dated 12.07.2019 filed under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru (hereafter referred to as "Impugned Award"). By the Impugned Award, the learned Trial Court has awarded a sum of Rs.5,37,000/- along with interest at 12% per annum to the respondent/claimant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two grounds of challenge in the present appeal. Firstly, he contends that the provisions of Section 4(1)(C) Of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “EC Act”) have not been complied with and thus the learned Trial Court could not have granted the compensation that was granted by it, since no assessment of physical disability has been undertaken by a qualified medical practitioner. Secondly, it is contended that the medical bills were submitted on two consecutive dates and thus these cannot be stated to be correct. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3544 MFA No. 659 of 2020 HC-KAR

3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that it is not disputed that the accident took place during the course of employment. The respondent/claimant was doing shade loping work which required him to climb trees to prune them. He submits that the work of respondent/claimant was akin to a labourer and was that he only performing physical work. Learned counsel further submits that the doctor in his examination clearly stated that the respondent/claimant is unable to do his work. Thus, he submits that in fact the award on functional disability should have been higher and the compensation ought to have been enhanced.

4. The brief facts are that the respondent/claimant was a workman employed by the appellant in his estate and was doing shade loping work. On 15.11.2013 at about 11.45 a.m. during the course of his employment, he fell down from a tree while performing the shade lopping work and sustained multiple grievous injuries. A Petition under Section 22 of the EC Act was filed by the respondent/claimant. The respondent/claimant produced evidence in his support including evidence of a doctor-PW.2. At the time of the incident respondent/claimant - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3544 MFA No. 659 of 2020 HC-KAR was 28 years old. The learned Trial Court after examining the evidence placed before it and PW2-doctor gave his finding that the respondent/claimant had sustained 30% disability and in terms of the fourth schedule using the multiplier the respondent/claimant was entitled to get Rs.3,05,000/- in addition to medical expenses. The learned Trial Court also examined the bills and prescriptions submitted and found that Rs.2,32,000/- approximately respondent/claimant on charges in the hospital. Thus, the Trial Court held that the respondent/claimant to be entitled to Rs.5,37,000/- as compensation along with the statutory interest.

5. The question that arises for this Court is that: 'Whether the compensation awarded by learned Trial Court was in accordance with provision of law?

6. The appellant has raised the contention that the provisions of Section 4(1)(C) of the EC Act have not been complied with and thus the compensation could not have been - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3544 MFA No. 659 of 2020 HC-KAR awarded. It is apposite to set out Section 4(1)(C) of the EC Act which reads as under: "Section 4(1)(C)-In the case of an injury specified in Part II of Schedule 1, such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury and in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury".

7. This Court has also examined the evidence of PW2, the doctor who was examined before the Trial Court. The evidence has been given by a qualified medical practitioner working in M.G. Hospital, Chikkamagaluru. In addition to having assessed 30% disability, further after examining the respondent/claimant he has stated that respondent/claimant is not in a position to climb tree and not in a position to do shade loping work. Further, he is also not in a position to do any hard work due to the disability stated. The relevant extract of the evidence in chief of PW.2 is set out below: "Now the petitioner came to me with complaint of inability to bend forward and lift heavy weight. I submit that, I have examined the petitioner and after thorough examination I have issued disability certificate in favour of the petitioner and in the said disability certificate I gave 30% disability. Further due - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:3544 MFA No. 659 of 2020 HC-KAR to the same he is not in a position to climb tree and he is not in a position to do shade loping work. Further he is also not in a position to do any hard work as before due to the said disability sustained by him as stated above" [Emphasis Supplied]

8. Clearly, the doctor in his evidence has stated the following: (i). The respondent/claimant is not in a position to perform his occasion at all since he is not able to climb a tree or able to do shade loping work. (ii). In addition, he is also not in a position to do any hard work as before due to the disability sustained. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessment was not done by the doctor does not merit consideration in view of the evidence before the court.

9. On the aspect of medical bills, the same were also examined by the learned Trial Court and the Trial Court found that the bills were supported by medical prescriptions (Exhibit P.7). Thus, the amounts were awarded. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:3544 MFA No. 659 of 2020 HC-KAR

10. It is opposite to set Paragraphs No.17 to 19 of the Impugned Award passed by the Trial Court in this behalf, which reads as under: "17. According to the doctor who is examined as PW.2 this petitioner has sustained 30% disability. The disability certificate is produced and marked as Ex.P.12. X-ray film is produced and marked as Ex.P.13. In his evidence Dr. Adarsh Sundar has stated that he has assessed the disability of this petitioner and found that this petitioner sustained 30% disability. This petitioner is not in a position to climb the trees and not in a position to do shade loping work. Further, this petitioner is not in a position to do any hard work as before due to his disability. In the cross-examination of the doctor, nothing worth is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Since the petitioner has sustained 30% permanent physical disability he is entitled to recover compensation from the respondent.

18. As per section 4(1)(b) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, where the permanent disablement results from the injury, to calculate the compensation amount, 60% of the monthly wages is to be multiplied by relevant factor. The 60% of the monthly wages will be Rs.4.800/-. As per the 4th schedule of the aforesaid Act. for the age 28 the relevant result will be multiplied by 211.79 Rs.10,16,592/-, The 30% of that amount Rs.3,0,.977.60. That amount can be rounded of to Rs.3,05,000/-. Hence this petitioner is entitle to get Rs.3,05,000/- from the respondent as a compensation in addition to the medical expenses. is 211.79. If Rs.4,800/- factor

19. Relating to medical expenses the petitioner has produced Ex.P.7 to P.10 documents. Ex.P.7 is the prescriptions and Ex.P.8 to P.10 are the medical bills. On going through all these documentary evidence it reveals that this petitioner had spent Rs.2,31,662/- as medical expenses and hospital charges. That amount can be rounded off to Rs.2,32,000/-. If that amount added to the aforesaid compensation amount, the total amount - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:3544 MFA No. 659 of 2020 HC-KAR will be Rs.5,37,000/-. The petitioner is entitled to recover this much amount from the respondent with interest." [Emphasis Supplied]

11. The learned Trial Court has thus after examining the evidence placed before it come to the conclusion that the disability was 30% and 60% of the monthly wages was to be multiplied as the factor in view of the physical disability.

12. Clearly the respondent/claimant's injuries were assessed by a qualified medical practitioner and thus compliance of Section 4(1)(c) of the EC Act has been undertaken prior to the impugned award being passed.

13. In view of the discussions above, this Court finds no reason to interdict the findings of the learned Trial Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The respondent/claimant is at liberty to withdraw the amounts as deposited with the Trial Court. RJ / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE