A heavy-vehicle driver’s income cannot be confined to ordinary skilled-labour minimum wages.

The claimant, Ashokkumar Amarnath Dubey, was employed as a driver by Ideal Movers Pvt. Ltd. and was driving Truck No. GJ-5-AT-1550.

On 24 August 2012, while checking the height of pipes loaded on the truck at Welspun Company, Anjar, a wooden log broke and trapped his right leg between the pipes, ultimately resulting in amputation and multiple surgeries involving rods, plates and other implants.

The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation awarded Rs.7,49,658 as compensation, calculated on the basis of a monthly income of Rs.7,000, 100% functional disability and the relevant factor of 178.49, together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident.

The insurer challenged the award under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, principally disputing the assessment of the claimant’s monthly income.

Whether the Commissioner erred in assessing the claimant’s monthly income at Rs.7,000 in the absence of documentary evidence of actual wages?

Whether the claimant’s income ought to have been restricted to the minimum wages applicable to a skilled labourer?

Whether the finding of 100% functional disability and the resulting compensation required interference in appeal?

The Court applied Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, governing appeals against awards of the Commissioner on the permissible statutory grounds.

In assessing compensation, the Court accepted the principle that functional disability must be evaluated with reference to the claimant’s actual occupation and earning capacity, rather than merely by reference to physical impairment; permanent incapacity to perform the claimant’s occupation as a professional heavy-vehicle driver could justify 100% functional disability.

The Court also applied the principle that income need not automatically be confined to minimum wages where the evidence establishes skilled employment and the employer has not specifically disputed the pleaded wages.

The beneficial-object principle underlying the Employees’ Compensation Act was also relied upon in upholding a reasonable assessment of compensation.

The Court found it undisputed that the claimant was employed as a heavy-transport vehicle driver and held a valid driving licence.

His right-leg amputation and associated injuries permanently prevented him from driving a transport vehicle, thereby supporting the Commissioner’s finding of 100% functional disability.

Although the insurer argued that the claimant’s income should be assessed at approximately Rs.5,000 per month—the minimum wage for a skilled labourer—the Court held that a professional heavy-vehicle driver possessed a skill level that could not be equated with that of an ordinary skilled labourer.

The claimant had specifically pleaded monthly wages of Rs.7,000, and the employer, who was best placed to dispute that assertion, had not denied it.

Accordingly, the absence of documentary evidence did not establish that the income claim was unproved.

The Court therefore found no error in applying the monthly income of Rs.7,000, the factor of 178.49 and 100% functional disability.

The compensation award of Rs.7,49,658, with interest at 12% per annum, along with the other directions concerning penalty, medical expenses and costs, was not interfered with.

The First Appeal was dismissed, interim relief, if any, was vacated, and the amount deposited before the Commissioner was directed to be disbursed to the claimant after proper verification and in accordance with law.