Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – s.2(1)(l) – Total Disablement – When –Determination of quantum of compensation – Appellant, a skilled labour was involved in construction work, fell down from second floor to ground floor when the centering plate collapsed on her head – Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation while holding disability to the whole body at 20%, assessed compensation at Rs.1,75,000/- – High Court partly allowing the appeal filed by the appellant enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,19,512/- – Held: Appellant suffered from disablement of permanent nature which incapacitated her from doing the work which she was capable of doing, which is that of a laborer – Thus, the Commissioner was wrong in holding that the disability of the appellant will have to be treated as 20% disability as work of the appellant involves lifting heavy weights and she has been rendered incapable from doing such work due to her disability – Case of the appellant is covered by the definition of ‘total disablement’, being 100% disabled – Functional disability of the appellant is liable to be assessed as 100%, compensation determined accordingly – Total compensation works out to be Rs.9,26,216/- rounded of to Rs. 9,30,000/- to be paid with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of making the application till the date of actual payment – Respondent-Insurance Company to pay the enhanced amount of compensation as directed.
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – Objective of – Discussed.
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – s.2(1)(l) – Total Disablement – Held: Total Disablement is defined u/s. 2(1)(l) to mean such disablement whether of a temporary or permanent nature as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of accident resulting in such disablement and every injury specified in Part I of Schedule I or combination of injuries specified in Part II of Schedule I where aggregate percentage, as specified in Part II against those injuries amounts to 100% or more – Further, two types of Total DisablementTemporary Total Disablement & Permanent Total Disablement, discussed.
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – s.2(1)(g) – Partial Disablement – Temporary Partial Disablement & Permanent Partial Disablement – Distinction between – Held: Distinction between the two types of partial disablement depends on the fact whether the disablement results in reduction of earning capacity in the particular employment in which the employee was engaged at the time of the accident or in all employment which the employee was capable of doing – In the former case the partial disablement is called temporary and in the latter case permanent – Every injury specified in Part Il of Schedule I of the Employees’ Compensation Act shall be deemed to result in permanent partial disablement.
Words and Phrases:
“Compensation”, “Just Compensation” – Discussed – Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – ss.3, 4.
“Partial Disablement”, “Total Disablement”– Discussed – Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – ss.2(1)(g), 2(1)(l) . Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The appellant is suffering from permanent partial disablement which also implies that she will not be able to do anything manually such as unloading building materials or using hand tools like shovels or picks or operating other machinery. Therefore, On the issue of disability, what is relevant is the statement of the Dr. Mallikarjun who examined the appellant for making an assessment of the disability. The disability report showed that there is Permanent Partial Disability of about 58% of the limb, which corresponds with 26% whole body. There is no dispute that the appellant suffered from disablement of permanent nature. The disablement has incapacitated her from doing the work which she was capable of doing. The said work was of that of a laborer. Therefore, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was wrong in holding that the disability of the appellant will have to be treated as 20% disability as the work of an appellant involves lifting heavy weights and the appellant has been rendered incapable from doing such work due to her disability. Hence, the case of the appellant will be covered by the definition of ‘total disablement’, therefore, being 100% disabled. Thus, it is an admitted position that the appellant can no longer pursue the work of a labourer. [Paras 18-20][725-C-G]
1.2 The Accident incapacitated the appellant from carrying out her vocation as a labourer. The impugned order passed by the High Court is not liable to be sustained. The functional disability of the appellant is liable to be assessed as 100% and, accordingly, the compensation is to be determined. The functional disability of the appellant being 100%, her age being 40 years and income being Rs.8000/-, 60% whereof works out to be Rs.4800/- and applying the multiplier of 184.17, as per Schedule IV of the 1993 Act, the compensation works out to be Rs.8,84,016/-. Adding an amount of Rs.42,200/- towards medical expenses for which the bills were presented, the total compensation works out to be Rs.9,26,216/- rounded of to Rs. 9,30,000/-. The appellant shall also be entitled for payment of interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of making the application till the date of actual payment. The respondent Insurance Company to pay the enhanced amount of compensation to the appellant along with 9% interest, calculated from the date of making of the application till the date of payment within six weeks from today. [Paras 23, 24][728-A-D]
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 SCC
343 : [2010] 13 SCR 179; K.Janardhan Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr (2008) 8 SCC 518 : [2008] 8 SCR 157; S.Suresh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.& Anr. (2010) 13 SCC 777 : [2009] 14 SCR
990 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.