Thakuri Dhubra v. M & H Universal Ltd

DCEC 804/2024

[2025] HKDC 1886

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO 804 OF 2024

________________________

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION

________________________

1.This is an assessment of compensation for an employees’ compensation claim. The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a kitchen helper and sustained an accident at work on 24 March 2023, which caused injuries to his right hand. He made this application for compensation under sections 9, 10 and 10A of the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance, Cap 282.

Background

2.The Applicant was born on 17 April 1981 and was 41 years old at the time of the accident.

3.On 28 August 2024, the Employees’ Compensation (Ordinary Assessment)  Board issued the Form 7, which assessed the permanent loss of earning capacity resulting from the injury as 1% and the necessary period of absence from duty necessary as a result of the injury as from 24 March 2023 to 25 June 2023.

4.There is no appeal against the Form 7.

5.The Respondent took no participation in these proceedings. Interlocutory Judgment on liability was entered on 2 July 2025 leaving compensation to be assessed.

Monthly earnings

6.In the Application, the Applicant claimed that his monthly earnings at the time of the accident were HK$20,000.

7.During the hearing, Mr Tong, solicitor representing the Applicant, confirmed that the Applicant only relies on his earnings for the month immediately preceding the accident, that is February 2023, for the purpose of the assessment of compensation.

8.The Applicant gave evidence that he received a monthly wage of HK$20,000.

9.I accept his evidence.  His case is sufficiently supported by documentary evidence:

(1)  The MPF statement shows that for the contribution period ended 28 February 2023, a sum of $1,000 being the Applicant’s mandatory contribution and another sum of $1,000 being the Respondent’s mandatory contribution were made.

(2)  The Applicant’s Hang Seng Bank statement shows that on 13 March 2023, a deposit of HK$19,000 was made to his bank account by the Respondent, with a remark “02Salary”.  I accept that this was the Applicant’s salary for the month of February 2023 after deducting $1,000 for the employee’s contribution to the MPF.

Compensation under Section 9

10.As mentioned above, there is no appeal against the Form 7. Therefore, the percentage of loss of earning capacity and the period of absence as stated in the Form 7 are conclusive for the purpose of the assessment of compensation: Ng Ming Cheong v Mass Transit Railway Corp [1997] 1 HKLRD 1231.

11.The Applicant was 41 years old at the date of the accident, so the multiplier is 72 months. The compensation under section 9 should be:

HK$20,000 x 1% x 72 = HK$14,400.00

Compensation under Section 10

12.The Applicant was granted sick leave from 24 March 2023 to 25 June 2023, for a period of 94 days.  The full period was endorsed in the Form 7.  The Applicant claims the compensation under section 10 at HK$20,000/30 x 94 x 4/5 = HK$50,133.33.

13.I find the claim reasonable, subject to §§16 to 19 below.

Compensation under Section 10A

14.The Applicant claims HK$2,990.00 under section 10A as medical expenses incurred as a result of the injury.  The claimed amount is supported by receipts produced by the Applicant. 

15.I find the claim reasonable, subject to §§16 to 19 below.

Payments received from the Respondent

16.During the opening submissions, Mr Tong did not draw my attention to any payments the Applicant has received during the sick leave period.  The Applicant’s claim was opened as if the Applicant has not received any.

17.However, the documentary evidence shows that the Applicant indeed received full payment of wages during the sick leave period.

(1)  The MPF statement shows that for the contribution periods ended 31 March 2023, 30 April 2023, 31 May 2023 and 30 June 2023, a sum of HK$1,000 each month was paid to the Applicant’s MPF account being the Applicant’s mandatory contribution.

(2)  The Applicant’s Hang Seng Bank statement shows the following:

(a)  On 20 and 22 April 2023, deposits of HK$10,000 and HK$9,000 were made to his bank account by the Respondent respectively, with a remark “03Salary”.

(b)  On 8 June 2023, a deposit of HK$19,000 was made to his bank account by the Respondent, with a remark “04Salary”.

(c)  On 28 June 2023, a deposit of HK$19,000 was made to his bank account by the Respondent, with a remark “05Salary”.

(d)  On 3 and 7 August 2023, deposits of HK$10,000 and HK$9,000 were made to his bank account by the Respondent respectively, with remarks “06Half” and “6Salary” respectively.

18.The Applicant confirmed in his oral testimony that he received full payment of wages during his sick leave period.  He, however, could not explain why he never mentioned this fact in his witness statement.

19.I find that during the sick leave period, the Applicant received from the Respondent a total sum of $20,000/30 x 94 = $62,666.67.  Credit should be given to such amount in calculating the compensation under sections 10 and 10A, but the award under section 9 is not affected: Kan Wai Ming v Hong Kong Airport Services Limited [2011] 3 HKLRD 497 at §32.

Summary

20.The compensation is as follows:

Under section 9  HK$14,400.00

Under section 10  HK$50,133.33

Under section 10A  HK$2,990.00

21.The payments received by the Applicant during the sick leave period in the total sum of $62,666.67 exceed the assessed compensation under sections 10 and 10A.

22.The award is therefore HK$14,400.00.

Order

23.I assess the compensation at HK$14,400.00.

24.I also allow interest on the said compensation at half judgment rate from the date of the accident on 24 March 2023 to the date of this assessment, and thereafter at judgment rate until payment.

25.I make a costs order nisi that the Respondent do pay the Applicant’s costs of the assessment of compensation (including all costs reserved, if any), to be taxed if not agreed.

Mr Tong Jonathan Yingkit, of MCA Lai Solicitors LLP, for the Applicant

The Respondent was not represented and did not appear