JUDGMENT : Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Subdivision-1, Belgaum (for short, ‘Commissioner’) in WCA/SR No.53/2012 dated 9.05.2013 for the employment related injuries suffered by him, claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 30(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. 2. Brief facts are that the claimant was working as a driver in a tractor bearing registration No.KA.49/T5023 belonging to respondent No.1/Girish Subhash Dhavaleshwar (respondent No.1 before the Commissioner) and insured with respondent No.2-National insurance company Ltd.,. It is stated that as per the direction of respondent No.1, the claimant on 06.06.2011 was ploughing the land of respondent No.1 using the said tractor and at that time, the tractor capsized and fell on him and he suffered multiple fractures on his legs, hand, head and also injuries all over the body. It is further stated that he was shifted to Ganga surgical and fracture clinic hospital at Gokak wherein he was inpatient for a period of more than one month. 3. In the proceedings before the learned Commissioner, respondent No.1 appeared through a learned counsel but he did not file any written statement. The respondent No.2/insurance company filed detailed written statement. 4. During the enquiry, claimant examined himself as PW1 and he examined one qualified medical practitioner as Dr.M.G.Umrani as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. Respondent No.2 did not examine any witness and policy of insurance was marked as Ex.R2(1). 5. Upon consideration of the entire materials placed before him, the learned Commissioner recorded finding that there was employer and employee relationship between the claimant and respondent No.1, and the accident resulting in injuries to the claimant took place in the course of and arising out of the employment. He further recorded finding that claimant was aged 35 years at the time of the accident and he was earning wages of Rs.4,401/-per month and noticed that P.W.2 had given assessment of loss of earning capacity to the extent of 90%. After applying the appropriate relevant factor, he awarded compensation of Rs.4,68,320/-with interest thereon at 12% per annum, but he did not consider prayer for award of expenses incurred for medical treatment. 6. Sri. Hanumanth H Lathur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant advanced threefold contentions. After applying the appropriate relevant factor, he awarded compensation of Rs.4,68,320/-with interest thereon at 12% per annum, but he did not consider prayer for award of expenses incurred for medical treatment. 6. Sri. Hanumanth H Lathur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant advanced threefold contentions. Firstly, he contended that claimant had pleaded in the claim petition that even though he was being paid monthly wages of Rs.6,000/-and respondent No.1 did not deny the same by filing written statement, the learned Commissioner by applying a notification has fixed the monthly wages of the claimant at Rs.4,401/and therefore, he submits that the same is liable to be interfered with and the monthly wages fixed at Rs.6,000/-for the claimant. Secondly, he contended that inspite of amputation of right leg suffered by the claimant and other serious injuries suffered by him in the accident and in spite of expert evidence that he suffered 100% disability, the learned Commissioner has fixed his loss of earning capacity only at 90% and the said finding is perverse and therefore, it is liable to be fixed at 100%. Thirdly, he contended that in view of amendment to the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 and incorporation of subsection (2A) to Section 4 of the Act, the claimant is entitled to reimbursement of the amounts spent by him towards medical treatment. He submitted that claimant had produced medical bills including the hospital bills to show that he had incurred expenses of Rs.2,74,451/and inspite of the same, the learned Commissioner has totally failed to consider the said aspect and has not granted any reimbursement. 7. Smt.Veena Hegde, learned counsel for the insurance company has vehemently opposed the said submissions and submitted that the learned Commissioner has rightly fixed the monthly wages of the claimant at Rs.4,401/-after due regard to the notification issued by the State of Karnataka, fixing wages for employees working in the transport industries and therefore finding of the learned Commissioner regarding monthly wages of the claimant is based on evidence and said finding is liable to be upheld. She further submitted that the learned Commissioner has applied his mind to the evidence and also having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant has rightly fixed the loss of earning capacity of the claimant at 90% and therefore no illegality has been committed by him and finding recorded by him in that behalf is liable to be upheld. 8. 8. She further submitted that she does not dispute right of the claimant to receive reimbursement towards medical expenses incurred by him for treatment, but it is not proved before the learned Commissioner that claimant had spent Rs.2,74,451/-for medical expenses and therefore she submitted that award passed by the learned Commissioner is based on evidence before him and the same is not liable to be interfered with. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and I have perused the case papers. 10. The insurance company has not challenged the award passed by the learned Commissioner and therefore the findings of the learned Commissioner on employer and employee relationship and also the finding on accident resulting in injuries suffered in the course of and arising out of the employment become final. 11. From the medical records produced, it is evident that the claimant has suffered extensive injuries in the accident rendering him incapable of engaging himself in any gainful employment. The photographs which are available in the lower Court records show extensive disfigurement caused to him and also amputation of the right lower limb. In a matter of this nature, the Courts are required to have regard to the enormity of the damage caused to the physical person as well as his self esteem resulting in stultification of his economic worth as a human being. It is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2018) 4 SCC 571 (Jagdish V/s. Mohan and others) in somewhat similar situation as follows: “ 14 . In making the computation in the present case, the court must be mindful of the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a loss of the use of both his hands. For a person engaged in manual activities, it requires no stretch of imagination to understand that a loss of hands is a complete deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing – at least in the facts of this case – can restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. Nothing – at least in the facts of this case – can restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity.” 12. The learned Commissioner has held that claimant has suffered loss of earning capacity to the extent of 90%. The claimant has produced Ex.P.5 MLC report, Ex.P.8 disability certificate, Ex.P.9 Medico legal case certificate, Ex.P.10 discharge card and Ex.P.12 CT Scan report. PW.2 Dr.M.G.Umrani who treated the claimant, assessed the disability of the claimant and also spoken about various injuries suffered by the claimant. Ex.P.8 is the certificate issued by the said Dr.M.G.Umrani and it reads as follows: Disability Certificate Date : 1-3-2012 This is to citify to. Shrishail. Mallappa. Ganiger. (31 yrs/agri) was under my treatment from 6-6-2011 to 6-9-2011 as indoor patient. He was suffering from (i) Compound fracture of right tibia, fibula/degloving from lower thigh to entire front of leg/wound contaminated with mud. (ii) Crush injury of right foot, fracture of 1st and 2nd metatarsals injury to extensor tendon. (iii) Compound fracture of mandible/cut lacerated wound over right temporal region 6”x4”/ cut facial artery/cut lacerated wound over scalp 4”x1”. (iv) Compound fracture dislocation at PIP joint on right ring finger/cut lacerated wound2”x1” (v) Cut lacerated wound of 1”x1” over right little finger. (vi) degloving injury of left leg 8”x4”, left thigh 6”x4” (vii) Cut lacerated wound of 3”x2” over right shoulder. 3”x2” over right lumbar region. (iv) Compound fracture dislocation at PIP joint on right ring finger/cut lacerated wound2”x1” (v) Cut lacerated wound of 1”x1” over right little finger. (vi) degloving injury of left leg 8”x4”, left thigh 6”x4” (vii) Cut lacerated wound of 3”x2” over right shoulder. 3”x2” over right lumbar region. He has undergone the following treatment 1: Date (7-6-2011) operation: under GA all the wounds debrided and sutured and dressed, compound fracture of right tibia reduced and stabilised bya nailwith 2 locking bolts below and 2 above, fracture of first metatarsl reduced and stabilized by 2 k wires, above knee plaster applied/above knee slab applied on left side/fracture of mandible reduced and stabilized by plate and screws arch wiring and IMF done/amputation of right ring finger done 2: Date (5-7-2011) Under spinal anesthesia right lower limb drapped and interlocking nail removed and b/k amputation done and haemostasis achived and wound closed 3: Date: (20-7-2011) Under spinal anesthesia both lower limbs drapped and faciocutenous flap raised from the left leg and bare area over the left leg covered and wound covered with skin grafts Sd/ Dr.M.G.Umarani, MBBS,D.Orth. KMC Reg.No.61893 Ganga Surgical & Fracture Clinic, Gokak 591307 Dt: Belgaum. 13. Further Ex.P.10 discharge card shows that there was amputation of right lower limb below knee. Taking into consideration of the above said aspects, PW.2 qualified medical practitioner who had also treated the claimant had assessed his physical disability at 100%. The claimant was working as a tractor driver and he is not an educated person. In view of serious injuries suffered by him and also on account of amputation of right lower limb it is extremely difficult for him to rehabilitate himself into any other gainful employment. In that view of the matter medical expert has given physical disability at 100% and therefore, the assessment made by the learned Commissioner that he had suffered only 90% of his earning capacity appears arbitrary. Accordingly, I hold that loss of earning capacity is required to be assessed at 100%. 14. In regard to income of the claimant is concerned, the learned Commissioner has recorded the finding that he was earning monthly wages of Rs.4,401/. In the claim petition, the claimant has asserted that he was being paid Rs.6,000/-per month by way of wages by his employer/respondent No.1. 14. In regard to income of the claimant is concerned, the learned Commissioner has recorded the finding that he was earning monthly wages of Rs.4,401/. In the claim petition, the claimant has asserted that he was being paid Rs.6,000/-per month by way of wages by his employer/respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has entered appearance before the learned Commissioner but he has not disputed the facts stated in claim petition by filing written statement. Even in evidence before the learned Commissioner, the claimant has reiterated his plea that he was earning Rs.6,000/-per month. The learned Commissioner has not accepted it only on the ground that claimant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he was being paid Rs.6,000/-per month. The approach of the learned Commissioner is wholly irrational and devoid of any understanding of the practical aspects of the matter. The claim of the claimant is that he was working as a driver in a tractor owned by respondent No.1 and it is not employment either under the State, local bodies or in incorporated companies and therefore, said employments are informal in nature and it is not capable of being established by producing documents. Normally, approach in the matter of this nature is to ascertain as to whether issues regarding wages made by claimant is denied by employee by filing written statement. In this case, respondent No.1 has not denied the same. The claimant has also deposed to the effect that he was earning Rs.6,000/-per month by working as a driver. The other relevant aspect is, by the amendment incorporated to the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 with effect from 31.05.2010, the maximum notional wage of a workman is enhanced from Rs.4,000/-to Rs.8,000/-per month. The accident in this case has taken place on 06.06.2011. 15. In that view of the matter, assertion of the claimant that he was earning Rs.6,000/-per month especially same having not been controverted by his employer cannot be said to be unreasonable. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has committed an error of law in placing reliance on the notification issued by Government fixing the notional monthly income at Rs.4,401/for the persons working in transport industry. Accordingly, I am constrained to hold that finding of the learned Commissioner regarding the monthly income of the claimant that he was earning Rs.4,401/-is based on no evidence and it is perverse. Accordingly, I am constrained to hold that finding of the learned Commissioner regarding the monthly income of the claimant that he was earning Rs.4,401/-is based on no evidence and it is perverse. It is relevant to notice that the Act itself has been amended with effect from 31.05.2010 enhancing the maximum notional monthly income to Rs.8,000/-from Rs.4,000/-fixed earlier. Hence, I am of the view that it is just and appropriate to fix the monthly wages of claimant at Rs.6,000/. 16. Section 4 (2A) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 reads as follows: (2A) The employee shall be reimbursed the actual medical expenditure incurred by him for treatment of injuries caused during the course of employment. 17. In view of the above provision of law, the claimant is undoubtedly entitled to reimbursement of the amount spent by him for his medical treatment as he has produced Exs.P.11, 13 and 14 which are medical bills and prescriptions. The total medical expenses incurred by him for treatment is Rs.2,74,451/(calculation memo is filed by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant). In view of the very serious nature of injuries suffered by him and hospitalization for a period nearly three months and also because of the amputation undergone by him, the amount shown as per bills for the treatment undergone by him does not appear to be an exaggerated version. Accordingly, I hold that claimant is entitled to reimbursment of Rs.2,74,451/-towards actual medical expenditure. Thus, compensation amount is required to be recalculated as follows: 6,000/-X60%x197.06=7,09,416/- Hence, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.7,09,416/-as against Rs.4,68,320/-awarded by the learned Commissioner. Further the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,74,451/-towards medical expenses. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.9,83,867/-with interest thereon at 12% P.A. with effect from 30 days from the date of the accident till realization. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The above appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.9,83,867/-as against Rs.4,68,320/-awarded by the learned Commissioner with interest at 12% per annum with effect from 30 days from the date of the accident till the date of realization. (iii) Out of the compensation awarded as above, a sum of Rs.7,09,416/-shall be kept in F.D. for 10 years in any nationalized Bank situated closet to the residence of the claimant. Further, the claimant is entitled to draw periodical interest from the F.D. for his maintenance. (iii) Out of the compensation awarded as above, a sum of Rs.7,09,416/-shall be kept in F.D. for 10 years in any nationalized Bank situated closet to the residence of the claimant. Further, the claimant is entitled to draw periodical interest from the F.D. for his maintenance. The balance amount shall be credited to the Bank account of the claimant directly by the Court.