IN CA 4492 OF 2023- SC- 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: Supreme Court
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra [17.07.2023]

Read More: Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Simran Singh

New Delhi, July 18, 2023: The Supreme Court, while dealing with a case regarding compensation for a work injury, restored the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner’s order awarding the appellant compensation based on 100% permanent disability and set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had reduced the amount of compensation awarded to the workman by treating the permanent disability of the appellant as 40% in place of 100 %.

The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra while allowing the appellant’s contention expatiated through the Section 2 (1) (1) of the Employee Compensation Act, 1923 which provided for functional disability and not just the physical disability which was the determining factor in assessing whether the claimant (i.e., workman) had 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 sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not dilute the import of the substantive clause, rather, adds to it by specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there was permanent total disablement.

The Bench stated that in the instant case, on the basis of medical certificate, 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 was whether she could be considered suitable for performing her task as a loading/unloading labourer, a task which was 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”

In the matter at hand, the appellant, was working as a loading and unloading labourer. On 03-10-2002, while loading poles onto a truck, the chain pulley broke and the poles fell on her left arm, causing a compound fracture.

She filed a petition seeking compensation for permanent total disablement as her left arm was rendered useless. The respondents, the employer and insurance company, did not dispute the facts but contested the claim.

The Commissioner found that the appellant was permanently unfit to do labour work due to her injuries and assessed her permanent disability as total. Based on her age and wages, the Commissioner awarded her compensation of ₹3,74,364.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court partly allowed the insurance company's appeal and reduced the compensation amount from  Rs.3,74,364/- to Rs.1,49,745.60/- by treating the permanent disability as 40% instead of 100%. The High Court observed that except for her left hand, the appellant had no other disability and could carry out tasks with her right hand.

The Bench set aside the High Court's order and held that total disablement was to be assessed based on functional disability, not just physical disability. As the appellant could no longer perform her work as a loading labourer due to loss of grip in her left hand, the Commissioner was justified in assessing her disability as total.