Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 1810
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N.Variava : S.R.Babu
Amar Nath Singh
Versus
Continental Constructions Limited, New Delhi
Case No. : 6684 of 1999
Date of Decision : 11/14/00
The court may, upon an overall assessment of a compensation case, modify the award without being strictly fettered by the statutory schedules or specific precedents to ensure a just and equitable outcome for the parties.
Headnote:(A) Workmens Compensation Act - Schedule I, Part I, Item 4 and Part II, Item 26 - Loss of vision in one eye - Quantum of compensation - Initial assessment by Commissioner at 100% was reduced to 30% by High Court - Appellant contended that medical loss of 80% vision in one eye reduced earning capacity, relying on precedents regarding amputation causing total disablement - Court observed that on an overall assessment of the matter, it should not be unduly fettered by the principles stated in the Act or those made during the course of the proceedings (Para 4).
Facts of the case:
An employee suffered an injury resulting in an 80% loss of vision in the left eye. The Workmens Compensation Court originally awarded 100% compensation under Schedule I, Part I, Item 4. Upon appeal, the High Court reduced the compensation to 30%, applying Item 26 of Part II of Schedule I. The appellant challenged this reduction, arguing that the loss of an eye significantly impaired his earning capacity.
Findings of Court:
Upon reviewing the papers and hearing both sides, the Court determined that a balanced financial adjustment was necessary. Out of the total amount deposited in the High Court, the appellant was permitted to retain a specific sum, while the balance was ordered to be refunded to the respondent.
Issues: Whether the reduction of compensation from 100% to 30% by the High Court was improper in light of the loss of earning capacity caused by the loss of vision in one eye.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in an overall assessment of such compensation matters, the court is not strictly bound by the technical principles of the statutory schedules or specific precedents if a different modification is deemed just and equitable under the circumstances.
Result: Appeal disposed of modifying the order made by the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation and that of the High Court; appellant to retain Rs. 1,00,000 and refund Rs. 97,000 to the respondent.
S.RAJENDRA BABU, J.
(1) THE appellant lost his left eye and made a claim as having lost his complete vision in that eye but medically it was assessed that loss of vision was only 80%.
(2) THE Workmens Compensation Court on an application being made to it by the appellant assessed the compensation payable to him as 100% under Schedule I, Part I at Item No. 4. On an appeal to the High Court the compensation, which was fixed at 100% was reduced to 30% relying upon the provisions under Item No. 26 of Part-11 of the Schedule I of the Act.
(3) THE contention putforth before this Court is that the reduction made by the High i Court is improper. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Another , AIR 1976 SC 222 : 1976 (1) SCC 289 : 1976-I-LLJ-235 wherein the case of amputation of left arm from the elbow causing total disablement to perform the work of Carpenter was discussed and contended in the present case that there is a loss of one eye and the earning capacity of the appellant has been reduced from what he was capable of earning at the time of the accident, as a result of disablement. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted this contention and submitted that as the appellant himself has been claiming that he was fit for work and his evidence discloses the same and in the circumstances the views taken by the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation is incorrect and that of the High Court is justified. The decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Another , (supra), turned on its own facts, therefore, the principles therein cannot be extended to the present case.
(4) HAVING gone through the papers and having heard learned counsel on both the sides, we are of the opinion that we should not be unduly fettered by the principles stated either in the Act or (sic) made in the course of the proceedings in this case and on overall assessment of the matter, we think that out of Rs. 1,97,000.00 deposited in the High Court towards compensation and penalty, which has been withdrawn by the appellant, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 shall be retained by the appellant while a balance of Rs. 97,0007- shall be refunded to the respondent in six months from today. It is open to the appellant to pay that amount of rs. 97,000.00 in different instalments if he so chooses. The appeal is disposed of accordingly modifying the order made by the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation and that of the High Court.
