Delhi High Court Rules 50 Percent Loss of Earning Capacity for Bus Conductor Amputation - 2026-07-20

Delhi High Court Rules 50 Percent Loss of Earning Capacity for Bus Conductor Amputation

A single-judge bench of the High Court of Delhi has partly allowed an appeal by United India Insurance Company Limited, trimming a workman's compensation award from a full 100 percent loss of earning capacity to 50 percent.

In a judgment dated 20 July 2026, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri upheld the Commissioner's findings on the claimant's employment and the accident, but found that the "incorrect legal standard" had been applied to the loss of earning capacity assessment in a case involving amputation of four fingers of the left hand.

From One Glance Inside a Bonnet to a Complex Claim

Sh. Digambar, a conductor on a private bus (registration No. DL-01-TC-0533) owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by the appellant company, claimed he was drawing daily wages of ₹350. On 26 February 2018, while the vehicle was parked near Delhi Resident after a breakdown, he allegedly opened the bonnet to inspect the engine. His left hand got trapped in the fan belt, injuries were grievous enough to cause amputation of four fingers at AIIMS, New Delhi.

The claimant contended that the accident was "out of and in the course of employment," and also that he had informed the owner about the mechanical difficulties about 15 days earlier.

Two Campaigns in the Arena

The insurer's counsel argued three fronts: no employer-employee relationship was proved, the monthly wage determination lacked documentary support, and — most critically — the Commissioner had wrongly treated the victim as 100 percent disabled when the statutory schedule prescribes only a 50 percent loss of earning capacity for amputation of four fingers.

Respondent No.1's counsel, by contrast, accused the insurer of failing to rebut the claim, pointing out that the testimony of employer Yograj Singh and the Evidence inventory supported the commissioner's version, and that the adverse references had been drawn correctly.

Statutory Schedule vs. Functional Evidence

The court first affirmed the Commissioner's findings on the employer-employee claim and the accident's occurrence during employment, observing in paragraph 8 that no material had been placed before it to show the findings were perverse. The only surviving legal question was the "earning capacity method" itself.

Entry 7 of Part II of Schedule I of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 — titled "Permanent Partial Loss" — stipulates a 50 percent loss of earning capacity for loss of four fingers. The bench noted that although this statutory percentage is not conclusively, any departure below or above requires "cogent evidence" of greater functional impact.

Important quotations

In paragraph 10, the court said:

> "The assessment necessarily depends upon having regard to the nature of the employee's vocation and the evidence on record. Any departure from the statutory assessment must be supported by cogent evidence demonstrating that the injury has resulted in a greater loss of earning capacity than that contemplated by the Schedule."

The judges distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata , where a carpenter's inability to perform his craft justified a complete loss of vocational earning capacity. That, Justice's reasoning can be extrapolated to every amputation.

Paragraph 12 then concludes:

> "This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that while the injuries undoubtedly caused permanent partial disability, the material on record does not justify the conclusion that he suffered 100 percent loss of earning capacity."

The Ruling

The court modified the impugned award dated 12.03.2020 "to the limited extent" that the claimant's loss of earning capacity is assessed at 50 percent. The learned Commissioner has been asked to recompute the compensation, including the statutory interest, and allow adjustments for any amounts already deposited or released under interim orders.

The matter has been listed before the Commission on 01.08.2026. The appeal was partly allowed and the pending stay application was disposed.

What This Means for the Case Law

The verdict reinforces at least two legal principles: first, that a statutory part of the schedule creates a starting presumption, not a ceiling — but the departure must be based on evidence of the particular job's actual functional demands; second, that physical disability and "loss of earning capacity" are separate legal concepts. It also sends a signal that insurers may challenge overly generous Commissioner awards where feedback of complete functional incapacity is thin, thereby encouraging a more evidence-tight practice before Labour Compensation regulators.