1. The applicant before the Employees' Compensation Commissioner has filed the present appeal claiming enhancement of compensation. The Applicant was a driver of a Tempo bearing Regn. No. KL-12E/8367. The applicant suffered personal injury in an accident that occurred on 10.03.2012. The 1st Opposite Party is the employer and the 2nd Opposite Party is the Insurance Company, which issued Ext.A5 Insurance Policy in favour of the 1st respondent with respect to the vehicle involved in the accident.

2. As per the Ext.A9 Disability Assessment Certificate issued by the Wayanad Medical Board, the Applicant suffered permanent disability of 40%. He was aged 40 years at the time of the accident, as his date of birth is 2025:KER:46034 MFA (ECC) No.62 OF 2018 4 04.05.1971 as per Ext.A3 Driving License. Though the Applicant claimed daily wages of Rs.750/-, which would come to Rs.22,500/- per month, the Commissioner took the wages as Rs. 8,000/- per month in view of the Central Government Notification No. S.O. 1258(E) dated 31.05.2010 issued under Section 4(1B) of the Employee's Compensation Act, which came into force with effect from 31.05.2010. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,53,606/- with 12% interest from the date of accident till deposit and an amount of Rs.74,821/- towards treatment expenses and directed the 2nd opposite party to pay the amount.

3. This Court admitted this appeal formulating substantial question of law:

4. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Celine Joseph and also the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent, Sri. Jacob Mathew.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Commissioner ought to have taken the monthly wages of Rs. 22,500/- for the calculation of the compensation. The 2025:KER:46034 MFA (ECC) No.62 OF 2018 6 learned counsel relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Saraswathi and others v. Pacifica Chennai Project Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others [2020 ACJ 79] and contended that the Central Government Notification No. S.O. 1258(E) dated 31.05.2010 issued under Section 4(1B) of the Employee's Compensation Act shall not be taken into consideration to limit the monthly wages at Rs.8,000/-. The learned counsel cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manusha Sreekumar and Others v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [(2022) 17 SCC 321], in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the monthly wages of a driver at Rs.15,600/- fixed in the year 2015 under Kerala Fair Wages Act.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent contended that the wages prescribed as per the 2025:KER:46034 MFA (ECC) No.62 OF 2018 7 Notification issued by the Central Government under Section 4(1B) of the Employee's Compensation Act is valid till the issuance of a fresh Notification revising the wages. The wages notified as per the Central Government Notification No. S.O. 1258(E) dated 31.05.2010 is revised only in the year 2020 as per Central Government Notification No. S.O. 71(E) dated 03/01/2020. The notified monthly wages as on the date of accident is Rs.8,000/- and hence compensation could not be calculated above the monthly wages of Rs.8,000/-. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manusha Sreekumar (supra) is one rendered under the Motor Vehicles Act where there is no wage ceiling and the same could not be made applicable to the cases under the Employee's Compensation Act where wage ceiling is prescribed. Hence, the applicant is entitled to a fixation of compensation only in accordance with the 2025:KER:46034 MFA (ECC) No.62 OF 2018 8 monthly wages of Rs. 8,000/-.

7. I have considered the rival contentions

8. In the Saraswathi (supra), it is held that the rights of the workers shall not be prejudiced because of the failure of the Central Government to revise the wages in view of the rising price index. Taking note of the aforesaid Notification issued in the year 2010, the Madras High Court held that the Central Government is duty-bound to consider and revise wages at least once a year. In the said case, the Madras High Court adopted the monthly wages of a welder fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu at Rs.16,704/- as per Notification dated 18.06.2014 under the Minimum Wages Act for an accident that happened on 08.08.2015. Accordingly, the Madras High Court fixed the monthly wages of the deceased employee 2025:KER:46034 MFA (ECC) No.62 OF 2018 9 therein at Rs. 16,704/-, increasing it from Rs. 8,000/- which was fixed by the Commissioner.

9. Admittedly, the applicant is a driver by profession. The monthly wages was fixed by the Central Government as per the aforesaid Notification dated 31.05.2010. Thereafter it was revised only after 10 years. As per Section 4(1B) of the Employees' Compensation Act, the monthly wages has to be notified by the Central Government from time to time. The employees should not be prejudiced on account of the default on the part of the Central Government in issuing Notifications fixing the monthly wages taking into account the increase of the wages from time to time. I am of the view that the monthly wages of Rs.15,600/- fixed in the year 2015 under the Kerala Fair Wages Act accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision Manusha Sreekumar (supra) could not be taken into 2025:KER:46034 MFA (ECC) No.62 OF 2018 10 consideration as the said decision is one rendered under Motor Vehicles Act where there is no wage ceiling.

10. The accident happened on 10.03.2012. As on that date, the monthly wages prescribed as per the Notification dated 31.05.2010 was Rs.8,000/-. The said monthly wages was revised only after 10 years to Rs. 15,000/- in the year 2020 as per Notification dated 03/01/2020. Considering the 10 years period between the aforesaid two Notifications of the year 2010 and 2020, the increase in the monthly wages for 10 years is Rs.7,000/-. It would indicate that the wages was increased on an average at the rate of Rs.700/- per year. Considering the time difference between the Notification and the accident, two years' increase amounting to Rs.1,400/- could be added to the monthly wages of Rs.8,000/- notified as per the Notification dated 31.05.2010 to fix the monthly wages ceiling in the year 2012 at Rs.9,400/-. I am of the view that the 2025:KER:46034 MFA (ECC) No.62 OF 2018 11 applicant is entitled to get the compensation fixed taking into account the monthly wages at Rs. 9,400/-.

11. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though as per Ext. A9 Disability Certificate, the disability certified is 40%, in relation to his work as a driver, the loss of earning capacity is 100%. There is nothing in evidence to show that the Applicant could not continue the same work on account of the disability caused by the loss due to the accident. Ext.A9 Certificate is issued by the Medical Board. Hence, I am of the view that the Commissioner rightly relied on Ext.A9 certificate to fix the disability at 40%.

12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the Applicant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.4,15,488/- [ Rs. 9400/- X 60/100 X 184.17 X 40/100].

13. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant.

2025:KER:46034 MFA (ECC) No.62 OF 2018 12

14. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed without costs re- fixing the compensation payable to the Applicant at Rs.4,15,488/- instead of Rs.3,53,606/- ordered by the Commissioner and confirming the order in all other respects.

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE sms