(vii) DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION

• Workman while doing his job on machine met with an accident - Sustained injuries of his two fingers - Workmen's Compensation Commissioner rejected his claim observing that he disobeyed express orders and instructions displayed on notice board. Not correct.
Ramrao Zingraji Shande v. MIs. Indian Yam Mnnufacturing Company, 1993 LIC 1658: (1992) 65 FLR 1055: (1993) 1 LLN 487: 1992 LLR 934 (Born He).

• Award challenged on the ground that finding of Commissioner of existence of employer and employee relationship between the injured and the appellant was based on no legal evidence - Commissioner based his finding only on the ground that injured gave the address of this appellant as his address on his driving licence - Whether finding sustainable? No.
Sh" Goods Transport Company v. Taak Dhari, 1993 LLR 307 (Del He).

• Rejection of a claim petition under the Act, stating that it was barred by the Motor Vehicles Act, will not be justified.
Neelabai Mahadeo Salunke v. Shamrao Tatobe Pawar, 1994 LLR 940: 1995(70) FLR 360: 1995¬1 LLj 833 (Born He).

• An employee working in clerical cadre covered under the Bombay Shops & Establishments Act can claim compensation under the Act.
Vasud", Anant Kulkarni v. Executive Engineers, M.S.E.S., 1994 LLR 965: 1994 (69) FLR 375: 1994-II LLN 542: 1994-II CLR 172: 1994 LIC 1421 (Born He).

• The Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot grant lesser compensation than that prescribed under the Act and the Schedule.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporalion v. B.T. Somasekharaiah, 1994 LLR 251: 1994 (68) FLR 402: 1994-1 LLN 680: 1994-II LLj 979 (Kar He).








•driver after accident is not able to drive the vehicle, his disablement will be despite doctor's certification as 50% disablement.
ew India Assurance Company Ltd. (Represented by Divisional Manager, Hyderabad) v. Kotam 'po Rao, (1995) II LLj 436, 1995 LLR 609: 1995 (71) FLR 24 (AP HC).
cOmmissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act cannot determine the lensation at his whims and fancies.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sreedharan, (1995) II LLJ 362: 1995 LLR 376: 1995 (71) "R 299 (Ker HC).
An impleading of insurance company in an accident claim decided ex parte will itiate order of Commissioner awarding compensation.
A.IL's Employees Association v. The Chief Labour Commissioner, 1996 LLR 986 (Del HC). ruck driver suffering 50% permanent disability will be entitled to loss of total ng capacity.
riental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kashim, 1996 LLR 595 (Ker HC).
lure to give reason for basis of loss of earning capacity without a doctor 'g disability certificate will not be maintainable.
ivisional Manager (Representing United Insurance Company Ltd. v. Knmlesh Chandra Patm, 196 LLR 228: 1995 LIC 2582 (Ori HC).
ere will be no irregularity when a composite order for compensation and Ity is passed by t1te Compensation Commissioner.
ew India Insurance v. Harivindra, 1997 LLR 134 (MP He).
award of the Compensation Commissioner based upon the medical kate will not be valid unless t1te doctor issuing the certificate is examined. riental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maku Mabakul Khan, 1997 LIC 2730 (Ori HC). termination of loss at a figure higher than stated by t1te do,tor without ating the basis will not be proper.
irector of Printing, Stationary and Publication v. Brahamananda Dhall, 1997 LIe 2808 (Ori C).
,ile granting compensation, it is to be seen whet1ter t1te earning capacity of ljured workman had been reduced in every employment and not merely in ,mployment where t1te injured workman was employed at the time of ent.


• David v. Gobind Chandra Mishra, 1997 LIC 1846: (1997) 3 LLN 409: (1997) 10 LR 353: 197-11 LLj 844 (Ori HC).
5S of earning is distinct from loss of earning capacity and t1te plea of t1te oyer t1tat the workman has been given employment will not deprive t1te
man to claim compensation arising out of an accident. .
'rissa State Electricity Board v. Kedar Charan renko, 1997 LIC 37: (1996) 2 ACC 662, (1996) OLR 332: 1997-11 LLj 1058 (Ori He).





• The Commissioner under the Act can seek more evidence to ascertain the disablement of an employee for compensation.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Tajuddin Abdul Rahim Karanche, 1995 LIC 2272 (1996) III LLJ (Supp) 1016: 1995 LLR 916: 1995 (71) FLR 619 (Kar He).

• Workmen's Compensation Commissioner can rely on doctor's certificate ascertaining the disability for compensation.
D. Venu v. Senen Fernandez, (1995) 11 LLJ 1113: 1995 LLR 643: 1995 (71) FLR 35 (Ker He). • If a driver after accident is not able to drive the vehicle, his disablement will be total despite doctor's certification as 50% disablement.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Represented by Divisional Manager, Hyderabad) v. Kotam Appa Rao, (1995) 11 LLj 436: 1995 LLR 609: 1995 (71) FLR 24 (AP He).

• Commissioner rmder Workmen's Compensation Act cannot determine the compensation at his whims and fancies.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sreedharan, (1995) 11 LLj 362: 1995 LLR 376: 1995 (71) FLR 299 (Ker HC).

• Non impleading of insurance company in an accident claim decided ex parte will not vitiate order of Commissioner awarding compensation.
G.A.I.L.'s Employees Association v. The Chief Labour Commissioner, 1996 LLR 986 (Del HC). • A truck driver suffering 50% permanent disability will be entitled to loss of total earning capacity.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kashim, 1996 LLR 595 (Ker He).

• Failure to give reason for basis of loss of earning capacity without a doctor issuing disability certificate will not be maintainable.
Divisional Manager (Representing United Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kamlesh Chandra Patra, 1996 LLR 228: 1995 LIC 2582 (Ori HC).

• There will be no irregularity when a composite order for compensation and penalty is passed by the Compensation Commissioner.
New India Insurance v. Harivindra, 1997 LLR 134 (MP He).

• An award of the Compensation Commissioner based upon the medical certificate will not be valid unless the doctor issuing the certificate is examined.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Maku Mabakul Khan, 1997 LIC 2730 (Ori HC).

• Determination of loss at a figure higher than stated by the do\'tor without indicating the basis will not be proper.
Director of Printing, Stationary and Publication v. Brahamananda D1uJll, 1997 LIe 2808 (Ori HC).

• While granting compensation, it is to be seen whether the earning capacity of the injured workman had been reduced in every employment and not merely in the employment where the injured workman was employed at the time of accident.
C. David v. Gobind Chandra Mishra, 1997 LIC 1846: (1997) 3 LLN 409: (1997) 10 LR 353: 1997-11 LLj 844 (Ori HC).

• Loss of earning is distinct from loss of earning capacity and the plea of the employer that the workman has been given employment will not deprive the
workman to claim compensation arising out of an accident. .
Orissa State Electricity Board v. Kedar Charan Lenka, 1997 LIC 37: (1996) 2 ACC 662: (1996) 2 OLR 332: 1997-1I LLJ 1058 (Ori He).

• Decision of Medical Board in ascertaining the disputed age of an employee will be binding upon the parties.
Ram Swarup Sharma v. Coal India Ltd., 1998 LIC 1102: (1998) 79 PLR 985: (1998) 3 LLN 781: 1998 LLR 588 (Cal HC).

• Compensation for non-scheduled injury will be based on the assessment by medical• practitioner.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajeev, 2002 LLR 287 (Ker He).

• Determination of compensation amount by Compensation Commissioner on the basis of permanent disability of the workman based upon the evidence will not be reduced by the High Court.
Shri Ram Dal Mills v. Rama s/o Setu, 2003 LLR 486 (MP He).

• An employee receiving injury on his back due to eleclric shock and falling from the electric poll entailing paralysis in both legs will be deemed permanently disabled and 90% compensation has been rightly awarded by Compensation Commissioner.
RS.E. Board, Nagpur v. Suwa Puri, 2003 LLR 528 (Born He).

• The assessment of compensation for disablement of a workman has to be on all work which he was capable of performing and not the work he was performing.
Vanajakshan (Deceased) v. MD. Joseph, (2003) 2 LLN 964: (2003) 2 KLT 462: 2003 LLR 826: 2003 (98) FLR 361 (Ker HC).

• 45 per cent instead of 100 per cent compensation will be appropriate compensation when there was no evidence that the workman was not capable of performing work other than that of a driver.
Vanajakshan (Deceased)v. M.D. Joseph, (2003) 2 LLN 964: (2003) 2 KLT 462: 2003 LLR 826: 2003 (98) FLR 361 (Ker HC).

• Mere retention in service of an injured workman cannot be justified in denying compensation for accident.
My,ore Sugar Company v. B.T. Krishnamurthy, 1997 LLR 141 (Kar He).

• Even though there is no bar in claiming more compensation than the prescribed, but it will be calculated strictly as provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Alex V. Chacko v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, (2004) 2 LLN 1161: (2004) II CLR 467: 2004 LLR 381: 2004 (100) FLR 753 (Ker He).

• When index fingers and thumb of left hand were cut by an attack, the workman will be entitled to 100% total disability compensation.
Kothari Group of Financiers v. Sri K. Muralidhar, (2004) 101 FLR 1102: 2004 LIC 1802: (2004) 3 ALD 68: 2004 LLR 617 (AP He).

• Compensation awarded on the 100% disablement as opined by a doctor when bus driver injured due to fall of heavy bag on his head is justified.
Management, Rani Managammal Transport Corporation Ltd. v. S. Murugavel, 2004 LLR 948 (Mad HC).

• When the evidence established that the workman's disablement was 65 per cent but he would not be able to work as a labourer, then compensation will be assessed at 100 per cent.
Nanu v. Ghouse Mohinuddin, (2004) 102 FLR 1196: (2004) 4 LLN 159: (2004) 5 ALD 48: 2004 LLR 1165 (AP HC).

• If a truck driver is unable to bend his right leg, it will be construed as total disablement.
Arjun Gangappa Kore v. Nirmal Bhagchand Bothra, (2005) 1 Mah LJ 179,2005 LLR (SN) 415 (Born HC).

• Determination at 100% compensation by the Compensation Commissioner will not be interfered even though the doctor has assessed the disability at 60%.
New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. K. Yadaiah, 2005 LLR 821 (AP HC).

• Compensation as payable in case of death of a workman has to be calculated as per the statutory provisions.
Shah v. Rajankutty, 2005 LLR H22 (Ker HC).

• The assessment of compensation, to an injured workman in an accident, can be made by determining the loss of his earning capacity.
National Insurance Company v. Dulal Delmath, 2006 LLR 123 (Gaa HC).

• While determining compensation for injuries, evidence of Doctor will be imperative.
Narayan Chakraborty v. Swapan Debnath, 2007 LLR 671 (SN) (Gaa HC).

• Assessing 60% disability for compensation by Physician instead of orthopedic surgeon will not be legal.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Okram Subhashchandra Singh, 2007 LLR 672 (SN) (Gaa HC). • Compensation for an accidental death of a driver will be made at minimum wages in the absence of proof for earning.
Ganga Devi v. Mis. 0.5. Motors Ltd., 2007 LLR 874 (Raj HC).

• Dearness Allowance forms part of earning of deceased for calculation of accidental compensation.
Sundari Devi v. Rajender Singh, 2007 LLR 893 (SN) (Uttr HC).

• Compensation for accident injuries will be in accordance with Workmen's Compensation Act.
General Manager, Mis. Tungabadra Minerals Ltd. v. Sri G. Ameer, 2007 LLR 1051 (Kam HC). • Amputation of lower limb of a driver will amount to 100% disablement for accident compensa tion.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shambhu Nath Yadav, 2007 LLR 1230 (SN) (All HC).

• The term 'fell due' under Workmen's Compensation Act means that the compensation to be calculated as on the date of accident.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha, 2008 LLR 5 (Ker HC).

• Driver sustaining complex fracture below the knee is to be treated as' total disablement.
Mis. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dinesh @ Vinesh Chandra Sharma, 2008 LLR (SN) 669 (Ori HC).

• 100% disability compensation to a driver suffering injuries upto knee level in an accident is rightly awarded.
K. Janardhan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2008 LLR 785 (SC).

• When the accident resulted into disability to the workman, compensation will be equivalent to 60% and not 50% of monthly wages.
Kamal Kumar v. Swarnkaur, 2008 LLR 869 (MP HC).

• 100% disablement benefits will be appropriate to a workman suffering injuries and not able to perform the same duties.
Pamarthi Subba Rao v. H. Rama Rao, 2008 LLR 889 (SN) (AP HC).

• No compensation will be payable on death of a chowkidar since his work was not of strenuous nature.
Pushpaben Netwer/al Dar;i v. Nila Norav Engineering Ltd., 2009 LLR 95 (Guj He).