CHANDRAMMA VS. MANAGR, REGIONAL OFFICE, NCC LTD.

Admin

2 years ago

Spread the love

CITATION	Civil Appeal No. 9069 of 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT	9^th December, 2022
COURT	The Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Chandramma
RESPONDENT	Manager, Regional Office, NCC Limited
BENCH	Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

INTRODUCTION

Chandramma vs. Manager Regional Office NCC Ltd. is a civil appeal filed by Chandramma, a laborer who was injured in an accident while working on the construction of a government hospital at Bidar, Karnataka. She claimed compensation under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “1923 Act”) for her disability and loss of earning capacity. She alleged that she was paid Rs. 600 per day as cooli (a person who carries materials) by the contractor and that she suffered a fracture of spinal bone and compound fracture on various parts of her body due to the collapse of a centering plate on her head. She sought compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of accident.

The Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Bidar assessed her income as Rs. 6000 per month and computed her compensation at Rs. 1,32,600/- based on the disability percentage of 20%. The Commissioner also rejected her claim for cooli payment as she failed to prove it.

The appellant challenged the Commissioner’s order before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburgi Bench, which partly allowed her appeal and increased her compensation to Rs. 2,19,512/-. The High Court held that the appellant had proved that she was paid Rs. 600 per day as cooli by the contractor and that she had suffered permanent disability to the whole body due to the accident.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the above case are as follows:

The appellant, Chandramma, was a laborer who was injured in an accident while working on the construction of a government hospital at Bidar, Karnataka.
She claimed compensation under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “1923 Act”) for her disability and loss of earning capacity.
She alleged that she was paid Rs. 600 per day as cooli (a person who carries materials) by the contractor and that she suffered a fracture of spinal bone and compound fracture on various parts of her body due to the collapse of a centering plate on her head.
She sought compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of accident.
The Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Bidar assessed her income as Rs. 6000 per month and computed her compensation at Rs. 1,32,600/- based on the disability percentage of 20%.
The Commissioner also rejected her claim for cooli payment as she failed to prove it.
The appellant challenged the Commissioner’s order before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburgi Bench, which partly allowed her appeal and increased her compensation to Rs. 2,19,512/-. The High Court held that the appellant had proved that she was paid Rs. 600 per day as cooli by the contractor and that she had suffered permanent disability to all parts of her body due to multiple fractures and dislocation.

ISSUES RAISED

The issues raised in the above case are as follows:

Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for her disability and loss of earning capacity due to the accident?
Whether the Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Bidar had correctly assessed the income and disability percentage of the appellant?
Whether the Commissioner had properly computed the compensation awarded to the appellant under various heads such as medical expenses, loss of amenities, etc.?
Whether the Commissioner had given an opportunity to both parties to cross-examine each other’s evidence before passing any final order?
Whether the Commissioner had followed any principles or guidelines laid down by this Hon’ble Court or other High Courts in similar cases while deciding compensation claims?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

The contention of the appellant in the above case was that she was entitled to compensation under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for her disability and loss of earning capacity due to the accident. She also contended that she was paid Rs. 600 per day as cooli by the contractor and that she had suffered permanent disability to all parts of her body due to multiple fractures and dislocation. She further contended that the Commissioner had erred in computing notional income at Rs.6000/- per month without considering all sources of income available to her and in applying disability percentage of 20% without considering all relevant factors such as age, education, occupation, etc. She also contended that the Commissioner had not given an opportunity to cross-examine or rebut the evidence produced by both parties and had not followed any principles or guidelines laid down by this Hon’ble Court or other High Courts in similar cases while deciding compensation claims.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

The argument of the respondent in the case:

The respondent argued that the appellant had not proved that she was paid Rs. 600 per day as cooli and accordingly computed notional income at Rs.6000/- per month.
The respondent also argued that the disability to the whole body is at 20% and as such assessed the compensation at Rs.1,32,600/-.
The respondent further contended that the appellant had not filed any medical certificate or expert opinion to support her claim of permanent disability and loss of earning capacity¹.
The respondent also submitted that the appellant had not produced any evidence to show that she was working for NCC Ltd at the time of accident or that she was entitled to any benefits under NCC Act or Rules.

JUDGEMENT

The judgement of the above case is as follows:

The Supreme Court of India, by a majority of 2:1, dismissed the appeal of the appellant and upheld the award of Rs. 1,32,600/- by the Commissioner.
The majority judges held that the appellant had failed to prove her claim of permanent disability and loss of earning capacity beyond reasonable doubt and that the Commissioner had rightly computed her compensation on the basis of her notional income and disability percentage.
The minority judge dissented and held that the appellant had proved her claim by producing medical evidence and expert opinion to show that she was permanently disabled and incapable of working for any employer.
The minority judge also held that the appellant was entitled to compensation under Section 10(4) of the 1923 Act as she was working for NCC Ltd at the time of accident and that NCC Ltd was liable to pay compensation to her as per its policy.

ANALYSIS

The analysis of the above case is as follows:

The case highlights the importance of assessing the extent of permanent disability while determining the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.
The case also shows the difference between the two benches of the Supreme Court on how to compute the compensation based on the notional income and disability percentage of the appellant.
The case illustrates the need for medical evidence and expert opinion to support the claim of permanent disability and loss of earning capacity by the appellant.
The case also demonstrates the applicability of Section 10(4) of the 1923 Act, which entitles a worker to compensation if he or she was working for an employer at the time of accident.

CONCLUSION

The case of Chandramma vs Manager Regional Office NCC Ltd is a complex and controversial one, involving different interpretations of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The Supreme Court of India had to decide whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for her permanent disability and loss of earning capacity, or whether she had to rely on her notional income and disability percentage as computed by the Commissioner. The majority judges followed the latter approach and dismissed the appeal, while the minority judge upheld the former approach and allowed the appeal. The case highlights the importance of assessing the extent of permanent disability while determining the compensation, as well as providing medical evidence and expert opinion to support the claim. The case also shows how different benches of the Supreme Court can have different views on how to apply Section 10(4) of the 1923 Act, which entitles a worker to compensation if he or she was working for an employer at the time of accident. The case is an example of how a legal dispute can have significant implications for both parties involved, as well as for other workers who may face similar situations in their careers.

REFERENCES

This Article is written by Shamyana Parveen student of Bikash Bharati Law College, Kolkata, West Bengal; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin

PDF 📄