Judgment 1. The Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of Rs.4,34,650/- in favour of the First Respondent/Claimant. The Facts of the case are as follows: 2. On 20.8.2003 when the Claimant was doing brick work for fixing AC Sheet under the employment of the Second Respondent herein, he fell down from the top of the roof, and grievously injured. For the injuries sustained, the Claimant filed W.C.No.111 of 2004 contending that during the course of the employment of the Second Respondent he sustained injuries and claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The Second Respondent/employer filed Counter Statement admitting that the claimant was working as Mason and that the accident occurred during his employment on 20.8.2003. However the Second Respondent-employer denied that the applicant was earning about Rs.170 per day. The Appellant/Insurance Company filed Counter Statement stating that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the Claimant and that the Mason could not be employed on regular basis and could not be a permanent employee and that he was earning about Rs.170 per day. 4. On appreciation of the pleadings and evidence adduced, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that: 1. The Claimant is employed under the Second Respondent-employer. 2. Theaccident occurred during the course and out of the employment, and 3. Basedon qualified Medical Practitioner’s evidence, taking 80% as disability and Rs.4,000/- as monthly wages awarded a sum of Rs.4,34,650/-. The said award is being challenged before this Court by the Insurance Company. 5. At the timeof admission this Court framed the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the award of the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case? 2. Whether the learned Deputy Commissioner erred in granting a sum of Rs.4,34,650/- without any basis for the same?” 6. Mr. S. Arun Kumar, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Insurance Company is aggrieved only with regard to the quantum of compensation especially with regard to the disability determined by the Commissioner. The learned Counsel submitted, P.W.2 and P.W.3-Doctors, adduced Claimant sustained 50% orthopaedic disability and 30% disability towards problem in the eye sight respectively. Mr. S. Arun Kumar, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Insurance Company is aggrieved only with regard to the quantum of compensation especially with regard to the disability determined by the Commissioner. The learned Counsel submitted, P.W.2 and P.W.3-Doctors, adduced Claimant sustained 50% orthopaedic disability and 30% disability towards problem in the eye sight respectively. The learned Counsel further submitted that there was no proper medical records available to fix the disability at 80% and therefore, the learned Counsel sought for reduction of disability determined by the Commissioner and consequently the quantum of compensation. 7. Thelearned Counsel strenuously contended that the claim itself was Rs.3,00,000/- whereas the Commissioner awarded Rs.4,34,650/- and that compensation could not be more that what was prayed for. Thirdly, the learned Counsel submitted that maximum wages of Rs.4,000/- as per the Act was taken by the Commissioner and that also requires reconstruction by this Court. 8. Even though the Insurance Company is aggrieved with regard to the quantum amount alone, this Court framed two substantial questions of law at the time of admission: 1. Whether the award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case? 2. Whether the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour erred in granting a sum of Rs.4,34,650/-without any basis for the same? With regard to the above first question of law, it has to be seen whether the Claimant comes under the definition of “Workman” and the accident during the course of employment and the amount awarded is as per law. The above 3rd part has been framed as second question of law and therefore, this Court gives reasoning with regard to first question of law. 9. It is the pleading and evidence of the Claimant that he was employed as Mason under the Second Respondent and sustained injuries in the accident during the course of employment. The aforesaid facts were admitted by the Second Respondent employer in Paragraph 2, of the Counter Statement filed by it. Even though the Appellant-Insurance Company denied the employment in the Counter Statement, there was no contra evidence on the side of the Insurance Company. Apart from that, before filing the Claim Petition, the Claimant issued notice to the Second Respondent-employer and the Appellant-Insurance Company on 1. 2004, claiming compensation which was marked as Ex.A3. Even though the Appellant-Insurance Company denied the employment in the Counter Statement, there was no contra evidence on the side of the Insurance Company. Apart from that, before filing the Claim Petition, the Claimant issued notice to the Second Respondent-employer and the Appellant-Insurance Company on 1. 2004, claiming compensation which was marked as Ex.A3. The acknowledgment of the said notice by the Insurance Company was marked as Ex.P5. In spite of receipt of the said notice no reply was sent by the Insurance Company. One more important aspect of the case is that the employer admitted the factum of employment of the Claimant and occurrence of accident during the employment. PW1 deposed oral evidence to that effect that the occurrence of the accident was during the course of the employment. In these circumstances, the Commissioner rightly found that the Claimant is a “Workman” and he sustained injuries during the course of employment. Therefore, the First question of law is answered against the Appellant. 10. With regard to second question of law, the Claimant stated in paragraph 3 of his Claim Petition as follows: “The Applicant submits that he was engaged as a mason by the first Opposite Party in his construction Company and he was paid a salary of Rs.170/- per day.” He also adduced oral evidence in consonance with the above pleading. Second Respondent, employer even though admitted the employment, denied payment of Rs.170 as daily wages in paragraph 3, of its Counter Statement and stated that daily wages was Rs.140/-. The Appellant in paragraph 5 of the Counter Statement denied earning of Rs.170 per day by the Claimant. 11. The Commissioner took Rs.4,000/- as monthly wages stating that Rs.170 was claimed by the Claimant and the Second Respondent-employer stated that Rs.140/- was daily wages. Therefore, he took Rs.4,000/-being the maximum monthly wages as per the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 12. The pleadings and evidence of the Claimant were that he was paid Rs.170/- as daily wages. Even though employer stated in the Counter Statement that the daily wages of the Workman was Rs.140/-, the said statement was not proved before the Commissioner by adducing evidence on the side of the employer/Second Respondent and therefore, the statement of the employer that the Workman was paid Rs.140/- cannot be taken and that was rightly done by the Commissioner. Even though employer stated in the Counter Statement that the daily wages of the Workman was Rs.140/-, the said statement was not proved before the Commissioner by adducing evidence on the side of the employer/Second Respondent and therefore, the statement of the employer that the Workman was paid Rs.140/- cannot be taken and that was rightly done by the Commissioner. Daily wages of the Workman that he was paid Rs.170/- was proved before the commissioner by his oral evidence. In absence of any contra evidence by the Insurance Company and the employer the Commissioner ought to have taken Rs.170/- as daily wages. However the Commissioner took Rs.4,000/- as per Section 4(1) Explanation II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. If Rs.170/- is taken as daily wages and 26 days are to be taken as working days, the monthly wages would be Rs.4,420/-. By evidence the claimant proved monthly wages as Rs.4,420/-. Whereas the Commissioner took Rs.4,000/- as monthly wages as per Explanation II of Section 4(1) of the Act. Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act reads as follows: “Amount of Compensation: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely: (a) Where death results an amount equal to from the injury- [Fifty percent] of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor; Or An amount of [eighty thousand rupees] whichever is more; (b) Where permanent an amount equal to total disablement [Sixty Percent] of results from the monthly wages the injury of the injured Workman multiplied by the relevant factor; Or An amount of [ninety thousand rupees] whichever is more. Explanation 1 – For purpose of Clause (a) and Clause (b), “relevant factor” in relation to a Workman means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due. Explanation II – Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed [Four thousand Rupees], his monthly wages for the purpose of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be [Four thousand Rupees] only; .(c) Where permanent partial disablement results from the injury .(i) in the case of an injury specified in Part-II of Schedule I, such percentage of the Compensation which could have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by the injury, and .(ii) in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury.” Explanation I – Where more injuries than one are caused by the same accident, the amount of compensation payable under this head shall be aggregated but not so in any case as to exceed the amount which would have been payable if permanent total disablement had resulted from the injuries. Explanation II – In assessing the loss of earning capacity for the purposes of sub-clause (ii) the qualified medical practitioner shall have due regard to the percentages of Loss of Earning Capacity in relation to different injuries specified in Schedule I; (d) Where temporary disablement, whether partial, results from A half-monthly payment of total the sum equivalent the injury to twenty-five percent of monthly wages of the workman, to be paid in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2). [(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), while fixing the amount of compensation payable to a workman in respect of an accident occurred outside India, the Commissioner shall take into account the amount of compensation, if any, awarded to such workman in accordance with the law of the country in which the accident occurred and shall reduce the amount fixed by him by the amount of compensation awarded to the workman in accordance with the law of that country. .(2) The half monthly payment referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be payable on the sixteenth day- .(i) from the date of disablement where such disablement lasts for a period of twenty-eight days or more, or .(ii) after the expiry of a waiting period of three days from the date of disablement where such disablement lasts for a periods of less than twenty-eight days: and thereafter half-monthly during the disablement or during a period of five years, which ever period is shorter: .Provided that- .(a) there shall be deducted from any lump sum or half-monthly payments to which is entitled the amount of any payment or allowance which the workman has received from the employer by way of compensation during the period of disablement prior to the receipt of such lump sum of the first half-monthly payment as the case may be; and .(b) no half-monthly payment shall in any case exceed the amount. If any, by which half the amount of the monthly wages of the workman before the accident exceeds half the amount of such wages which his earning after the accident. .Explanation- any payment of allowance which the workman has received from the employer towards his medical treatment shall not be deemed to be payment or allowance received by him by way of compensation within the meaning of clause (a) of the Proviso. .(3) on the ceasing of the disablement before the date on which any half monthly payment falls due, there shall be payable in respect of that half month a sum proportionate of the disablement in that halfmonth.] [(4) if the injury of the workman results in his death, the employer shall, in addition to the compensation under sub-section (1), deposit with the Commissioner a sum of [two thousand and five hundred rupees] for payment of the same to the eldest surviving dependant of the workman towards the expenditure of the funeral of such workman or where the workman did not have a dependant or was not living with his dependant at the time of his death to the person who actually incurred such expenditure.” 13. Explanation II states that the maximum monthly wages to be taken as per Act is Rs.4,000/-. Before 12. 2000, the maximum monthly wages was Rs.2,000 which was substituted by Rs.4,000/-with effect from 12. 2000 by Act 46 of 2000. Explanation II states that the maximum monthly wages to be taken as per Act is Rs.4,000/-. Before 12. 2000, the maximum monthly wages was Rs.2,000 which was substituted by Rs.4,000/-with effect from 12. 2000 by Act 46 of 2000. The Workmen’s Compensation Act was enhanced to provide for payment of certain classes of the employers to their Workmen’s Compensation for the injuries caused to them by Accident. 14. Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 has its origin of colonial period, like many other primary and major Acts. But for cosmetic amendments, the main Act remain the same. Statements of Objections and Reasons for the enactment of Workman’s Compensation was published in the Gazette of India, 1922, Part V at P.313, which is extracted as follows: “The general principles of Workmen’s Compensation command almost universal acceptance, and India is now nearly alone amongst civilized countries in being without legislation embodying these principles. For a number of years the more generous employers have been in the habit of giving compensation voluntarily, but the practice is, by no means, general. The growing complexity of industry in this country, with the increasing use of machinery and consequent danger to workmen, along with the comparative poverty of the workmen themselves, renders it advisable that they should be protected, as far as possible from hardship arising from accidents.” The object of the Act is to compensate the injuries arising out of the accidents during the course of employment and resulting in disablement or death. The object is very laudable and it is a beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of weaker section namely workman. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.v. Mohd. Nasir and another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 287 (SC): 2009 (6) SCC 280 , it has been held that Workmen’s Compensation Act is a beneficial Act for the workmen. 15. When that is the position, there should not have been a ceiling on monthly wages or workman as Rs.4,000/-. It would affect the workmen who are earning more than Rs.4,000/-. Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 cannot determine and restrict the monthly wages and fix at Rs.4,000/-. Minimum monthly wages can be fixed and there cannot be any ceiling on the monthly wages. It would affect the workmen who are earning more than Rs.4,000/-. Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 cannot determine and restrict the monthly wages and fix at Rs.4,000/-. Minimum monthly wages can be fixed and there cannot be any ceiling on the monthly wages. Fixing maximum monthly wages is detrimental to the interests of the working class and would certainly affect fundamental rights of the workers guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) (Right to carry on occupation) and 21 (Right to life). Explanation II to Section 4(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is inconsistent and contrary to very object of the Act and is against Article 43 (Living wage, etc., for workers). Fixation of Rs.4,000/- as maximum wages goes against the very object of the Act and it is high time that the Act is amended or to do away with the maximum monthly wages fixed under Section 4(1) Explanation-II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 16. Considering raise in earning capacity and spending power, inflation, cost of living, the monthly wage of the workmen is bound to raise and changes. Therefore, the maximum monthly wages Rs.4,000/- fixed in the Act is very meager and therefore, requires reconsideration by way of enhancement or deletion of ceiling fixed under Section 4(1) Explanation II of the Act. This Court wonders as to why the labour Forums/Association missed the implications of the Section and challenge the said provision. .17. In this case with regard to injuries sustained by the Claimant two Doctors were examined PW 2 and PW 3. PW1-Claimant spoke about the injuries sustained by him stating that by falling he had sustained the injuries in the head and because of the injuries there were blood clots in the brain and that he sustained double vision in the eye sight and there is flow of secretion through his nose. He also further deposed that he was hospitalized in the Hospital for 11/2 month and is unable to do any work and there is a cavity formed in the skull and he often gets fits and becomes unconscious and that he is unable to walk properly resulting in not doing any work. .18. He also further deposed that he was hospitalized in the Hospital for 11/2 month and is unable to do any work and there is a cavity formed in the skull and he often gets fits and becomes unconscious and that he is unable to walk properly resulting in not doing any work. .18. PW2-Doctor deposed that because of the accident there was a fracture in the skull and that there was bleeding in the brain and that there was surgery on the forehead and that the blood clots were removed and that there is secretion in the brain which drains through nose and that he gets fits and he is unable to do any work. After analyzing all medical records and clinically examining the Claimant, PW2, fixed 50% disability for the injuries sustained by him. PW3 an Opthalmologist, who deposed as follows: .“Oklar movement restricted in some direction, no obvious squint but candidate Complaints of double vision on looking downwards and outwards: on examination verticle diplobia presents greater for near objects and not for the distance object. Hyper deviation of right-eye. This is more obvious when head titled on the same side.” 19. Based on the above mentioned deposition the Commissioner determined 30% disability for the injuries in the eye. Therefore, the Commissioner fixed the disability at 80%. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that both Doctors did not do any test like CT Scan, X-Ray, ECG, etc., and they deposed based on the Medical records produced by the Claimant. The learned Counsel further submitted referring to Section 20(3) of the Workman’s Compensation Act, that the Commissioner got powers for appointment of Commissioner for the purpose of deciding any matter. Section 20 of the Act is extracted as follows: “Appointment of Commissioner.- (1) The State Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, appoint any person to be a Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation for such area, as may be specified in the Notification. .(2) Where more than one Commissioner has been appointed for any area, the State Government may by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business between them. .(3) Any Commissioner may, for the purpose of deciding any matter referred to him for decision under this Act, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the matter under inquiry to assist him in holding the inquiry. .(3) Any Commissioner may, for the purpose of deciding any matter referred to him for decision under this Act, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the matter under inquiry to assist him in holding the inquiry. .(4) Every Commissioner shall be deemed to be a public servant with the meaning of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 20. Even though no such expert was commissioned in this case the Commissioner did take the opinion (evidence) of the persons who possessed special knowledge in the matter viz. PW2 and PW3-Doctors. The Appellant-Insurance Company had the opportunity to examine an expert to disprove the claim of the Claimant, and they failed to utilize the same. Therefore, it is not for the Appellant, at the Appellate stage, to raise such a point in this regard. The Commissioner can get an expert opinion only when there are two contra opinions by two different experts regarding the same point/matter are available. However, in this case Claimant’s Doctors alone gave evidence. Therefore, this Court cannot suspect the credentials of the experts who were examined before the Commissioner and the Commissioner rightly went by the evidence of PW2 and PW3-Doctors and therefore, it does not warrant any interference. It is seen that the Doctors gave Disability Certificates and deposed not only based on the Medical records produced by the Clamant but also based on clinical examination of the Claimant and therefore, this Court believes the evidence of PW2 and PW3. PW2 is Dr. J.R.R. Thiagarajan, retired Professor of Orthopaedics in Stanley Medical College Hospital, Chennai and his evidence was relied on by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Gnanam v.Metropolitan Transport Corporation, 2009 (1) TN MAC 23 (SC): 2009 ACJ 852 . That case arose out of Motor Vehicles Act. 21. A conjoint reading of PW1, PW2, PW3 and Ex.P2, P7, P9 and P10 would show that the Claimant sustained 80% disability. He sustained permanent total disability and consequent loss of earning. However, as the Act stands as on date, Rs.4,000/- alone has to be taken as the maximum monthly wages and therefore the Tribunal rightly awarded the Loss of Income as 80 x 4000 x 226.38 x 60/100= 4,34,650/-. Therefore, this Court confirms the award passed by the Commissioner at Rs.4,34,650/-. 22. However, as the Act stands as on date, Rs.4,000/- alone has to be taken as the maximum monthly wages and therefore the Tribunal rightly awarded the Loss of Income as 80 x 4000 x 226.38 x 60/100= 4,34,650/-. Therefore, this Court confirms the award passed by the Commissioner at Rs.4,34,650/-. 22. Even though the Claimants sought for Rs.3,00,000/-, the Commissioner has got power based on the available evidence to determine the compensation and awarded more compensation than prayed. Rigid rules of pleading and evidence are not applicable in the enquiry before the Commissioner. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, 2004 (2) TN MAC 398 (SC): 2003 (2) SCC 274 , it was held that the Court can award more compensation than claimed. Though the case arose under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the dictum is equally applicable to the compensation awarded under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 also. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohd. Nazir and another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 287 (SC): 2009 (6) SCC 280 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Commissioner can award more amount than claimed and para 53 of the judgment is extracted as follows: “The function of the Commissioner is to determine the amount of compensation as laid down under the Act. Even if no amount is claimed, the Commissioner must determine the amount which is found payable to the workman. Even in the cases arising out of the 1988 Act, it is the duty of the Tribunal to arrive at a just compensation having regard to the provisions contained in Section 168 thereof.” Therefore, the Commissioner is justified in awarding more compensation than claimed. Even otherwise, if the Commissioner does not award appropriate amount, this Court under Section 30 of the Act, and under Article 227 of the Constitution on appreciation of facts and evidence can enhance the amount as the Appeal is statutory Appeal. Therefore, the Second question of law is also answered against the Appellant. 23. Ina scholarly judgment, His Lordship Mr. Even otherwise, if the Commissioner does not award appropriate amount, this Court under Section 30 of the Act, and under Article 227 of the Constitution on appreciation of facts and evidence can enhance the amount as the Appeal is statutory Appeal. Therefore, the Second question of law is also answered against the Appellant. 23. Ina scholarly judgment, His Lordship Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi in Harinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 (1) Scale 613; referring Y.A. Mamarde v. Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1972 (2) SCC 108 ; Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v. Subash Kapoor, 2001 (1) SCC 118 ; Government Branch Office Press v. D.B. Belliappa, 1979 (1) SCC 477 ; Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, 1984 (1) SCC 1 , decried about the shift in the Courts approach with regard to interpretation of Social Welfare Acts and para 23 is quoted as follows: “23. Of late, there has been a visible shift in the Courts’ approach in dealing with the cases involving the interpretation of social welfare legislation. The attractive mantras of globalization and liberalization are fast becoming the raison d’etre of the judicial process and an impression has been created that the Constitutional Courts are no longer sympathetic towards the plight of industrial and unorganized workers. In large number of cases like the present one, relief has been denied to the employees falling in the category of workmen, who are illegally retrenched from service by creating by-lanes and side-lanes in the jurisprudence developed by this Court in three decades. The stock plea raised by the public employer in such cases is that the initial employment/engagement of the workmen-employee was contrary to some or the other statute or that reinstatement of the workman will put unbearable burden on the financial health of the establishment. The Courts have readily accepted such plea unmindful of the accountability of the wrong-doer and indirectly punished the tiny beneficiary of the wrong ignoring the fact that he may have continued in the employment for years together and that micro wages earned by him may be the only source of his livelihood. It need no emphasis that if a man is deprived of his livelihood, he is deprived of all his fundamental and Constitutional rights and for him the goal of social and economic justice, equality of status and of opportunity the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution remain illusory. It need no emphasis that if a man is deprived of his livelihood, he is deprived of all his fundamental and Constitutional rights and for him the goal of social and economic justice, equality of status and of opportunity the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution remain illusory. Therefore, the approach of the Courts must be compatible with the Constitutional philosophy of which the Directive Principles of State Policy constitute an integral part and justice due to the workman should not be denied by entertaining the specious and untenable grounds put forward by the employer-public or private.” 24. Concurring with his Lordship Mr. Justice, G.S. Singhvi, His Lordship Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly in a lucid and unique manner emphasized the need for upholding the Constitutional focus on social justice. His Lordship quoting exhaustively from N.A. Palkhivata in his book “N.A. Palkhvala: Our Constitution Defaced and Defiled”, words of Noble Laureate Rabindranath Tagore and Justice R.C. Lahoti: Preamble-The spirit and backbone of the Constitution of India and referring Kesavananda Bharathi v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 146; Bidi Supply Co. v. U.O.I., AIR 1956 SC 479 ; Naresh Shridar Mirajkar and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1967 SC 1 ; State of Kerala and another v. N.M. Thomas and other, 1976 SC 490; Sri Srinivasa Theatre and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, 1992 (2) SCC 643 ; Indra Sawhney and others v. U.O.I. and others, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; Anthorised Officer, Thanjavur and another v. Naganantha Ayyar and others, 1979 (3) SCC 466 , paragraphs 37 & 38 in Harinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, 2010 (1) Scale 613 read as follows: “37. In view of such clear enunciation of the legal principles, I am in clear agreement with Brother J. Singhvi that this Court has a duty to interpret statutes with social welfare benefits in such a way as to further the statutory goal and not to frustrate it. In doing so this Court should make an effort to protect the rights of the weaker sections of the society in view of the clear Constitutional mandate discussed above. 38. In doing so this Court should make an effort to protect the rights of the weaker sections of the society in view of the clear Constitutional mandate discussed above. 38. Thus, social justice, the very signature tune of our Constitution and being deeply embedded in our Constitutional ethos in a way is the arch of the Constitution which ensures rights of the common man to be interpreted in a meaningful way so that life can be lived with human dignity.” 25. One another fact to be taken note of, is that in the Motor Vehicles Act under the following headings, amounts are awarded for the injuries sustained in the accident: 1. Disability 2. Loss of Income 3. Pain and Suffering 4. Loss of Love and Affection 5. Loss of Consortium 6. Loss of damage to cloths and property 7. Loss of Estate 26. Whereas in Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 the disability is considered for the purpose of calculating the Loss of Income alone. Though the liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are different, an ‘injury’ sustained is always an ‘injury’ and the ‘pain’ suffered is ‘pain’ with all its elements and there cannot be any difference whether the victim gets relief under Motor Vehicles Act or under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Therefore the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act need to be revamped on par with provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with regard to awarding of amounts under other headings viz. Pain and Suffering, Loss of Love and Affection, Loss of Consortium, Damage to Cloths and Property, Loss of Estate, etc. 27. As already stated above, this Court suggests/recommends that: .(1) Restricting and fixing maximum monthly wages of workman at Rs.4,000/- under Section 4(1) Explanation-II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 is required to be reconsidered by way of amendment; .(2) To revamp/amend Workmen’s Compensation Act with regard to awarding of compensation on par with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by addition of provision for awarding amounts towards Pain and Sufferings, Loss of Love and Affection, Loss of Consortium, Loss of Damage to Cloths and Property, Loss of Estate, etc. 28. With the above observations this Appeal is dismissed and the above order is confirmed.