Functional Disability is the determining factor in assessing compensation of a workman
Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another
Civil Appeal 4492/2023
Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice J B Pardiwala J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra J
Appeal allowed on 17.07.2023
Fact:
Appellant Indra Bai, a loading and unloading laborer was under employment of M/s. Simplex Concrete Company was loading poles/pillars in the truck, the chain pulley broke and the poles fell on the left arm of the appellant resulting in a compound fracture of her left arm as well as damage to the nerves etc. on 03.10.2002. As no compensation was paid by the Company, the appellant filed petition before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. Compensation Commissioner assessed that the appellant had incurred permanent total disability, on finding that her age was 30 years and monthly wages were Rs.3,000/- at the time of the accident, Commissioner computed the compensation payable as Rs. 3,74,364/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, M/s. Simplex preferred appeal, before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur.
Workman Compensation Commissioner (WCC):
Workman Compensation Commissioner calculated compensation as per the age factor given in Schedule IV of Section 4 of the Act which came to Rs. 3,74,364/-.
Appeal by M/s. Simplex before Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur against Compensation awarded
The High Court vide impugned order dated 31.10.2022, while not finding any fault with reference to any of the findings recorded by the WCC, reduced the compensation taking loss of earning capacity of the appellant Indra Bai at 40%. The amount of compensation was reduced to Rs.1,49,745.60/-.
Aggrieved by the order of the Jabalpur High Court reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the WCC instant Civil Appeal was filed.
Civil Appeal Before Supreme Court (SC) by Appellant Indra Bai
Argument of the Appellant Counsel before SC
1. Appeal U/s 30 was not to be entertained by the High Court against order of the WCC unless there was substantial question of law.
2. High Court fell in error by assessing the permanent disability as 40% instead of 100%.
3. Total disablement, whether temporary or permanent, of a workman is to be adjudged on the basis of his incapacity to perform the work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement.
4. The evidence brought on record had clearly indicated that the appellant’s left hand was rendered useless therefore she was declared unfit for labor job.
Respondent Counsel didn’t appear before SC:
1. Despite due service on the respondents, no counsel on behalf of either M/s Simplex or Oriental Insurance Company appeared.
Observation of the Apex Court:
1. The kind of injury the appellant suffered resulted into permanent disability.
2. It is the functional disability and not just the physical disability which is the determining factor in assessing compensation whether the appellant has incurred total disablement.
3. If the disablement incurred in an accident incapacitates a workman for all work which she 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.
4. On the basis of medical certificate provided by the Board, the Commissioner found the appellant unfit for labor in as much as there was complete loss of grip in appellant’s left hand.
5. Prior to the accident, the appellant worked as a loading/unloading laborer. 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 laborer.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In such circumstances, when the Board had certified that the appellant was rendered unfit for labor, 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.
9. 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.
10. 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
Decision:
The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the award passed by the Workman Compensation Commissioner is restored.
Seema Bhatnagar
