Incapacity To Work Has To Be Determined With Reference To Sole Occupation Of Person As On Date Of Motor Accident: Karnataka High Court

A Single Judge bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur while partly allowing the appeal filed by one Nagendra said,

"The occupation of the petitioner being a driver involves specific skills and alertness to operate the motor vehicle. Both eyesight requires one to be perfectly in good condition to work as a driver in order to avoid any eventualities of accident or causing injuries to either himself or others."

It rejected the contention that the Petitioner has not suffered 100% functional disability and could perform other functions given that the vision in his right eye is intact. It observed,

"Incapacity to do work has to be determined with reference to the sole occupation of the petitioner, being the driver as on the date of accident...In the present case on hand, admittedly the petitioner has lost the complete vision on the left eye and entire eyeball has been removed and scooped, thereby rendering him without any vision on the left eye. Petitioner being employed as a driver having skillful expertise in the said field is a relevant factor for consideration of disability."

The court also held that, "In a case where there is proof of wages/salary produced it is incumbent upon the Court to take the minimum wages for consideration for computing compensation despite the pleading by the petitioner of an amount being lesser than the minimum wages prescribed by the Act."

Accordingly it modified the order of the tribunal and said, "In the facts and circumstances of the present case an amount of Rs.8,000 per month requires to be taken as income for computation of compensation." The tribunal had calculated the compensation amount on the basis of Rs 6,000 as minimum wages, as was pleaded by the petitioner.

Case Details:

United India Insurance Co Ltd had approached the court challenging the judgment award passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appeal preferred by the Insurer was premised on the ground of perversity, arbitrariness and exorbitant amount of compensation awarded. The appeal preferred by the petitioner (driver) was premised on the ground of wrong assessment of income and inadequacy of compensation.

Insurance Companies submissions:

Advocate B.C.Seetha Rama Rao, appearing for the company argued that trial Court has erred by over assessing the loss of earning capacity, contrary to statute and medical evidence (30% incapacity) and has erred in not noticing that it is only the left eye that is affected, whereas the eyeball is not damaged and has ignored the aspect of the other eye being perfectly in order.

It was also said that the trial Court has grossly erred in awarding interest from the date of accident, whereas interest ought to have been awarded after one month from the date of accident as contemplated under law. The trial Judge has mis-directed himself and grossly erred in not considering the provisions of law with regard to award of compensation and also with respect to award of interest from the date of one month after the date of occurrence of accident.

Submission of the driver:

Advocate Suma Kedilaya, appearing for the appellant (driver) contended that trial court has erred in assessing proper income for computation of compensation by not appreciating the seriousness of the injury as stated by the petitioner and also corroborated by the Doctor.

Further, it was said the petitioner sustained grievous injury on his left eye thereby losing his complete vision of his left eye. The trial Court ought to have taken the income of the petitioner to be at Rs.10,000 per month. In view of the fact that the petitioner can no longer continue his avocation of driving as he has lost complete vision of his left eye, thereby losing his future earning prospects which ought to have been favourably considered by the trial Court.

Court findings:

The court first dealt with the issue regarding minimum wages fixed by the trial Court for computing compensation. The court took note of the fact that the Central Government Gazette notification issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, in 2010, wherein the monthly wages has been fixed as Rs.8,000 per month.

It noted the Gazette notifications enhancing monthly wages under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 to Rs.15,000/- per month. It opined,

"It cannot be disputed that the Act itself is a beneficial Law. Hence, there has to be a liberal interpretation and construction of the same with an intent to bring into effect the specific Legislative intent in bringing about such amendments time and again. There is no ambiguity in Section 4 (1) of the Act as well as Section 4(1B) of the Act. So also, with regard to the amendment made in the Gazette notification dated 31.05.2010."

It added, "When this being the situation the Courts will have to strictly go by the provisions of Law and keep in mind the Legislative intent behind enacting such a Law. It is trite law that whenever beneficial Legislation is made it is with an intention to see that the aggrieved party is benefited by such Legislation, more so in the specific case of death or injury having been caused or occurred in the course and during the employment. This is also somewhat similar to the beneficial Legislation in motor accident cases."

It then held,

"I am of the opinion that the amount of monthly wages increased from time to time by way of amendment through Gazette notification by the Central Government, clearly prescribes the said amount to be a minimum wages amount."

Further, it said, "In the present case on hand, though the petitioner has pleaded and lead evidence to the effect that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, I deem it appropriate that in the facts and circumstances of the present case an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month requires to be taken as income for computation of compensation."

Loss of vision in one eye is permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity

The court went through the facts of the case and evidence recorded and dismissed the submission of the counsel for Insurer that the vision on the right side of the eye of the petitioner being normal, he could do other activities with one of his eye, namely right eye and hence, the petitioner would would provide 30% of loss of earning capacity as against 100% awarded by the trial Court.

It observed, "It is no doubt true that the petitioner may be able to do some kind of work using his only vision on the right eye, but the essential and crucial aspect of the matter for consideration would be whether the petitioner can earn his livelihood as a driver which he was doing as a sole occupation prior to the date of occurrence of accident. The answer to the said question would be in the negative."

The bench said, "Under the Act incapacity to do work has to be determined with reference to the sole occupation of the petitioner, being the driver as on the date of accident."

It added,

"Admittedly, in the present case on hand, it is not the case of any of the parties more specifically, the Insurer or Owner that the petitioner was employed for any other work other than being driver by profession. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has suffered 100% loss of his earning capacity due to his functional disability of being a driver, which was the sole occupation to earn his livelihood prior to the date of accident."

Accordingly, it upheld the decision of the trial court with regard to assessment of 100% disability of the petitioner towards loss of earning capacity. Following which the court dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company and partly allowed the appeal filed by the driver.

Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., versus NAGENDRA

Case No: MFA NO.8801 OF 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 146

Date of Order: 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

Appearance: Advocate SEETHA RAMA RAO B.C for appellant; Advocate SUMA KEDILIYA a/w V.PADMANABHA KEDILAYA for R1