Employer’s knowledge of accident obviates mandatory notice requirement under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act.

The respondent, a headload worker employed at the appellant’s godown, sustained fractures in both legs on 17.11.2007 when a rice bag fell on him during the course of employment.

The respondent filed a claim for compensation (ECC No. 59/2017) seeking Rs. 1,17,410/-. Despite the specific claim amount, the Employees Compensation Commissioner awarded a higher sum of Rs. 2,62,216/- with 12% interest.

The appellant challenged this order on two primary grounds: first, that the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding an amount exceeding the claim, and second, that the claim was barred due to the respondent's failure to serve a mandatory notice of the accident under Section 10 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

1. Whether the Commissioner has the jurisdiction to award compensation higher than the amount specifically claimed by the applicant.

2. Whether the lack of a formal notice of the accident as contemplated under Section 10(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, bars the maintainability of a compensation claim when the employer has prior knowledge of the accident.

The court relied on Section 10 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, which mandates notice of an accident but includes provisos—specifically the fourth proviso, clause (b), which stipulates that the absence of notice is not a bar if the employer had knowledge of the accident from another source.

Regarding the quantum of compensation, the court applied the principle established in Chairman and Managing Director, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. v. Sudhish [(2026) KLT OnLine 1553], holding that the Commissioner has the duty to award "just compensation" regardless of the claimed amount.

Furthermore, the court referred to Romesh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and Others [(2006) 6 SCC 510] to interpret the function of a "proviso" as a tool to carve out exceptions to a general statutory rule.

The court first addressed the jurisdiction regarding the award amount, noting that following the Sudhish precedent, the Commissioner is legally obligated to grant "just compensation," even if it surpasses the claimant’s prayer.

On the issue of notice under Section 10, the court analyzed the statutory structure, observing that the fifth and fourth provisos significantly dilute the rigour of the general rule in Section 10(1).

The court found that because mediation had occurred between the parties prior to the filing of the application, the accident was well within the appellant’s knowledge.

Applying Section 10(1) fourth proviso (b), the court reasoned that the objective of the notice—to inform the employer—had already been met through other sources, rendering the technical failure to issue a formal notice inconsequential to the maintainability of the claim.

The court held that (1) the Commissioner is authorized to award compensation higher than the amount claimed to ensure it is "just", and (2) the want of a formal notice under Section 10 is not a bar to a claim if it is proven that the employer had knowledge of the accident through other means, such as prior mediation.

The order of the Commissioner granting Rs. 2,62,216/- with interest was upheld.