Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently enhanced compensation to a man, whose right arm was amputated, due to injuries sustained in a road accident in 2014, by treating him as a skilled worker as he was a carpenter, holding that classifying a carpenter as an unskilled worker would be unfair.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manmohan allowed the appeal filed by Karamjit Singh against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment and awarded him compensation of Rs. 15,91,625 with interest at rate of 7.5 % per annum.

The claimant-appellant, on September 27, 2014 while riding his motorcycle along with his son Dilpreet Singh, who was the pillion rider, suffered a collision with the vehicle of the respondent no. 1, Amandeep Singh and suffered injuries in right arm and leg as well as other parts of the body.

An FIR under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of IPC, 1860 was registered at Police Station Chamkaur Sahib, District Rup Nagar.

As a result of the injuries suffered, he underwent surgery and treatment at PGI, Chandigarh and subsequently at Sangh Hospital, Ropar. Ultimately, his right arm was amputated on October 21, 2014.

He filed a claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 40,00,000 with an additional Rs 4,00,000 spent on treatment.

By an award on January 11, 2017 the MACT granted compensation totalling Rs 6,84,582 and directed the insurance company to pay the said amount within two months of the award, failing which interest had to be paid at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

Both the parties preferred appeals before the high court, which were disposed by the common impugned judgment. In the appeal by the present appellant, the high court enhanced the compensation to Rs 8,26,600.

Further aggrieved by this determination, the claimant-appellant filed a plea in the Supreme Court.

The court noted the tribunal took the earning of the claimant-appellant as Rs 5000 per month, whereas in the claim petition, the monthly income of the claimant-appellant was shown as Rs 25,000.

A perusal of the award showed that however little, if any, discussion had been made as to the source of livelihood of the claimant-appellant who was apparently a carpenter, the bench said.

That being the case, the bench said, it had no option but to take, for the purposes of calculation the minimum wages as prevalent during the relevant time issued by the Office of the Labour Commissioner, Punjab.

"A carpenter is somebody who uses wood and constructs objects for daily use or beauty or in certain countries even housing. A normal person who is not trained in the craft certainly cannot undertake these activities with the level of precision that is required. It would be unfair then, to classify a carpenter as an unskilled worker," the bench said.

The bench pointed out the apex court in State of Orissa Vs Adwait Charan Mohanty (1995), wherein while speaking of the definition of an artisan reference was made to the Blacks Law Dictionary which terms an artisan as a person who is skilled in a trade, craft or art requiring manual dexterity. In the examples given thereunder, features the word ‘carpenter’. Further, the bench pointed out, in Neeta Vs Maharashtra SRTC (2015), it was observed that carpentry is a skilled job.

The court noted the minimum wages as applied to skilled persons for the purpose of calculation of compensation, as on the relevant date would be Rs 8337 and fixed the percentage of disability as 74%.

The bench thus allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation by modifying award made by the tribunal and the high court.

Case Title: Karamjit Singh Vs Amandeep Singh & Anr