Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 – s.2 and s.4 – Total disablement – Functional Disability – Appellant-employee was employed as a loading and unloading labourer with R-2-company for truck insured with R-1 – While loading poles in a truck, the appellant suffered a severe injury on the left arm – There was no grip left in her left hand – Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner upon consideration of the evidence on record found the appellant rendered permanently unfit to do labour work, which she was doing at the time of the accident and awarded total compensation of Rs.3,74,364/- – However, the High Court assessed her permanent disability as 40% and thereby reduced the compensation awarded – On appeal, held: If the disablement incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident, it would be considered as total disablement for the purposes of award of compensation – When the Board had certified that the appellant was rendered unfit for labour, there was no perversity in the decision of the Commissioner in awarding compensation by treating the disability as total on account of her functional disability – Judgment of High court set aside – Order of the Commissioner restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The definition of the term “total disablement” as provided by clause (l) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, it is the functional disability and not just the physical disability which is the determining factor in assessing whether the claimant (i.e., workman) has incurred total disablement. Thus, if the disablement incurred in an accident incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement, the disablement would be taken as total for the purposes of award of compensation under section 4(1)(b) of the Act regardless of the injury sustained being not one as specified in Part I of Schedule I of the Act. The proviso to clause (l) of subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not dilute the import of the substantive clause. Rather, it adds to it by specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there is permanent total disablement. [Para 28][857-E-G]
2. On the basis of medical certificate provided by the Board, the Commissioner found the appellant unfit for labour inasmuch as there was complete loss of grip in appellant’s left hand. Prior to the accident, the appellant worked as a loading/unloading labourer. Even if she could use her right hand, the crux is whether she could be considered suitable for performing her task as a loading/unloading labourer. Such a task is ordinarily performed by using both hands. There is no material on record from which it could be inferred that the appellant was skilled to perform any kind of job by use of one hand. It is also not a case where the appellant had the skill to perform her job by using machines which the appellant could operate by using one hand. In such circumstances, when the Board had certified that the appellant was rendered unfit for labour, there was no perversity in the decision of the Commissioner in awarding compensation by treating the disability as total on account of her functional disability. Consequently, no question of law, much less a substantial one, arose for consideration by the High Court so as to allow the appeal in exercise of power under Section 30 of the Act. In our considered view, the High Court erred in partly setting aside the order of the Commissioner and assessing the disability as 40% instead of 100%, as assessed by the Commissioner. [Para 31][858D-G]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and Another (2007) 2 SCC 349 : [2007] 2 SCR 117 – held inapplicable.
Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata Another (1976) 1 SCC 289 : [1976] 2 SCR 872; Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda v. Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 1 SCC 796 : [2019]
14 SCR 556 – relied on.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Mohd. Nasir and Another (2009) 6 SCC 280 : [2009] 8 SCR 829; Golla Rajanna and Other v. Divisional Manager and Another (2017)1 SCC 45 : [2016] 9 SCR 469 – referred to.
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.