Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 –Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Claim for disability compensation – Appellant-seaman joined a crew on a foreign going vessel on 18.09.2009 and he was discharged on 18.06.2010 with the declaration of being permanently unfit for sea service, due to dilated cardiomyopathy – Seaman claimed that he was entitled to 100% disability compensation under clause 21 of the National Maritime Board Agreement –The said claim for disability was rejected by the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) as this was not a case of a seaman becoming incapacitated on account of an accidental injury suffered on the vessel – The High Court found that the appellant’s case does not fall in the category of clause 21 since there is no impediment in his performance of normal day to day affairs–In other words, the seafaring work may not be feasible but the person is capable of discharging duty of another job of general nature – Therefore, the SCI’s rejection order was upheld – On appeal, held: Under clause 5.9. F(ii), 100% compensation is payable to a seaman in a situation where a seaman is found medically unfit for sea service, as a result of injury, while in employment –In the instant case, the appellant never claimed to have suffered any injury during his ship duty – Moreover, the impaired heart function cannot reasonably be attributed to his nine-month engagement –The clause 21 applies to a case of total disability but this is not a case of 100% disablement – The dilated cardiomyopathy condition prevents a person from performing sea service but same will not be an impediment for him to perform other jobs –As far as appellant’s disability under both the disability Act 1995 or Act of 2016 is concerned, the dilated cardiomyopathy condition does not bring his case in either of the Act – The High Court held that only severance compensation under clause 21 is payable for the seaman and he will not get benefit of s.47 of the Disability Act 1995 – There is no reason to reach another conclusion.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Under Clause 5.9.F (ii) of the National Maritime Board Agreement, 100% compensation is payable to a seaman in a situation where a seaman is found medically unfit for sea service, as a result of injury, while in employment. To secure coverage of Clause 5.9.F (ii), the incapacity must relate to injury being suffered whilst in employment. In the present case, the appellant never claimed to have suffered any injury during his ship duty. Moreover, the impaired heart function cannot reasonably be attributed to his nine month engagement. In such circumstances, although the seaman commenced his engagement with a fitness certificate, it would be unreasonable, in view of this Court,to relate the medical condition of the appellant having causal connection with his sea voyage engagement. [Paras 11 and 12][825-E-F; 826-A-B]
2. The Clause 21 applies to a case of total disability but this is not a case of 100% disablement. To say it another way, the Dilated Cardiomyopathy condition may prevent the man from performing sea service but the same will not be an impediment for him to perform other jobs. With this interpretation,the High Court held that only severance compensation under Clause 25 is payable for the seaman. There is no reason to reach another conclusion on the implication of Clause 21 and Clause 25,for the appellant. [Para 15][826-G-H; 827-A]
3. As far as appellant’s argument that his heart ailment should be understood as a disability under the Disability Act and consequential benefits be accorded to him is concerned, section 2(i) of the Act takes into account visual disability, locomotor disability, mental illness,mental retardation, hearing impairment and leprosy. A heart ailment is not covered within the definition of disabilityin the Act and we would hesitate to import words, which the legislature 15 chose not to, in their definition of disability. When the 1995 Act was replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, “a person with disabilities” was defined under Section 2(s) as a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment which prevent his full and effective participation in society. Section 2(zc) defines, “specified disability” as those mentioned in the Schedule to the 2016 Act. In the said Schedule, “physical disability”, “intellectual disability”, “mentalbehaviour”, are specified.The dilated Cardiomyopathy conditionof the appellantis neither a specified disability noris the same relatable to the broad spectrum ofimpairments, which hinders is full and effective participation in society. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that Dilated Cardiomyopathy condition of the appellant does not bring his case within the ambit of either the 1995 Act or of the 2016 Act.The High Court, therefore, was correct in concluding that Dilated Cardiomyopathy condition 16 would not facilitate any benefit to the appellant under Section 47 of the Disability Act. [Para 18] [827-E-H; 828-A-B]
Divisional Controller, NEKRTC vs. Sangamma and Ors. 2005 (2) LLN 776; Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rita Fernandez 1969 (2) LLJ 812 – held inapplicable.
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.