1 2026:CGHC:17182 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1393 of 2023 Praveen Kumar Saphi S/o Ramvriksh Saphi Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Village Kerwa, Post Gangore, P.S. Saharghat, Distt. Madhubani Bihar, Present Address Village Kawalgir, Jajga Post Udaipur P.S. Lakhanpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. D.V. Project A-1 Vikash Complex, Power House Road, Transport Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Pin No. 495677, Through Vikash Ranjan Mahto, S/o Late Banshilal Mahto, R/o Korba, P.S. And Tehsil Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 2. H.D.F.C. Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. Registered And Corporate Office, First Floor, H.D.F.C. House 165-166 Backway Reclamation, H.T. Parekh Marg, Church Gate, Mumbai ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vidhya Bhusan Soni, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) No. 2 : Mr. Sangeet Kushwaha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 15/04/2026 1. The present appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 by the claimants, assailing the award dated 26.04.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, Labour Court, JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.04.17 10:49:29 +0530 2 Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 23/E.C. Act/2021 (non-fatal), seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded. 2. The present appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- Whether the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Labour Court, Ambikapur, was justified in assessing the salary of the claimant/ injured under the Gazette notification dated 31.05.2010 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 though there is a specific acceptance by the respondent No. 1/ employer and evidence on record that the claimant was receiving salary of Rs. 23,000/- at the time fo the accident. 3. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, the applicant filed an application under Section 22 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth, referred to as ‘Act of 1923’), seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a road accident dated 25.12.2019 stating inter alia that, on the said date at about 7:00 PM, the applicant was working under the employment of respondent No. 1 in connection with road construction work on the Ambikapur–Bilaspur road near Lahpatra Nala. During the course of such employment, an 3 unknown truck, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the applicant and ran over his legs, resulting in grievous injuries. The applicant was immediately taken to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, where he was treated from 25.12.2019 to 26.12.2019, and thereafter, on 27.12.2019, he was referred to Kalda Hospital, Raipur for further treatment. Owing to the severe crush injuries, both his legs had to be amputated to save his life, rendering him permanently disabled and incapable of performing any work. On these grounds, the applicant has claimed compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- under various heads. It is further averred that at the time of the accident, the applicant was working as a skilled labourer and was earning Rs. 23,000/- per month. 5. Respondent No. 1 has filed his written statement and admitted that the applicant was working under his employment at the relevant time. It is further stated that immediately after the incident, the applicant was taken to the hospital and all medical expenses were borne by him. Respondent No. 1 has also pleaded that the establishment was duly insured with the Insurance Company in respect of any accident involving its employees, and therefore, the entire liability, if any, is to be indemnified and borne by the Insurance Company. 6. Insurance company/ respondent No. 2 has also filed its written statement denying the averments made in the claim application and contended that the applicant sustained injuries due to an 4 accident caused by an unknown truck, and therefore, the applicant himself is liable and no liability can be fastened upon it. It is further stated that although respondent No. 1 had obtained an insurance policy from the respondent in respect of its employees, the same covered only unskilled labourers and was valid for the relevant period. The respondent No.2 has also contended that as per Gazette Notification No. 1258(E) dated 31.05.2010 issued under Section 4(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, the notional monthly income of a labourer is Rs. 8,000/-, and therefore, the claim amount sought by the applicant is highly excessive and exaggerated and on these grounds, respondent No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of the claim application. 7. On the basis of pleading of the parties, learned Labour Court framed as many as 5 issues, recorded evidence of both the parties and vide impugned award, awarded compensation amount of Rs. 8,60,160/- and directed respondents to pay aforesaid amount within a period of 01 month before the Tribunal, else it shall carry interest of 12% per annum till its final payment. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the date of the accident, the claimant was drawing a salary of Rs. 23,000/- per month, which stands duly proved by the pay slip of the relevant period. It is further submitted that the said document was not disputed or opposed by either of the parties before the 5 learned Commissioner. Despite this, the learned Commissioner has assessed the compensation on the basis of the prevailing minimum wages instead of the actual proved income. Hence, it is contended that the award amount requires recalculation on the basis of the established salary of the claimant. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the representative of the employer has been examined before the learned Commissioner and has categorically admitted that the claimant was receiving a salary of Rs. 23,000/- at the time of the accident. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 supports the impugned award and submits that no interference is warranted, however, he is unable to controvert the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is not disputed that the age of the claimant at the time of accident was 20 years and he was working under respondent No.1 and getting salary of Rs.23,000/- per month. The salary slips were placed on record as Ex.P-1 shows his salary at the time of accident was Rs. 23,000 p.m. Even the evidence of employer also reflect and accepts that the salary of the appellant at the time of accident was Rs. 23,000/- p.m. As per Schedule IV of the Employees’ Compensation Act, the relevant factor applicable for the said age is 224.00. 6 12. Therefore, this Court finds that the assessment made by the Commissioner at 8,60,160/- is on the lower side. Further, ₹ considering the evidence on record, the salary of the claimant having been duly proved, the monthly income deserves to be reasonably assessed at ₹23,000/-. As per the disability certificate, the amputation of both legs of the applicant has resulted in 80% disability. Similarly, in terms of Entry No. 17 of Part II of Schedule I to the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, amputation below the hip is deemed to constitute 80% loss of earning capacity. Under these circumstances, in pursuance of Section 4(1)(b) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, the compensation is required to be computed by taking 60% of the monthly wages. 13. Accordingly, the compensation is recalculated accepting the wages of the deceased to be Rs. 23,000/-, 60% of which would be Rs. 13,800/- which if multiplied by applying the factor of 224.00, the amount comes to Rs.30,91,200/-. As the disability is 80%, thus the amount of compensation is 80% of it would reach to 24,72,960/- instead of Rs. 8,60,160/- as awarded by ₹ the learned Commissioner. The claimants shall also be entitled to interest as provided under Section 4A of the Act from the date the compensation fell due till its actual payment @ 12%. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the question of law is answered in favour of the appellant. The impugned award dated 7 26.04.2023 is modified to the extent that the compensation payable is enhanced from 8,60,160/- to 24,72,960. The said ₹ ₹ amount be paid to the applicant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. If any amount, as ordered by the learned Commissioner has already been paid to the applicant, the same shall be adjusted. It is made clear that the enhanced amount shall carry statutory interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 15. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti