SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, DINESH MAHESHWARI, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.150 OF 2021
Decided on : 10-02-2021
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Section 47 – Rejection of claim for disability compensation – To secure coverage of Clause 5.9.F (ii) of National Maritime Board Agreement, incapacity must relate to injury being suffered whilst in employment – Appellant never claimed to have suffered any injury during his ship duty – Impaired heart function cannot reasonably be attributed to his nine month engagement – In such circumstances, although seaman commenced his engagement with a fitness certificate, it would be unreasonable, to relate medical condition of appellant as having causal connection with his sea voyage engagement – Dilated Cardiomyopathy condition may prevent man from performing sea service but same will not be an impediment for him to perform other jobs – Heart ailment is not covered within definition of disability in the Act – Dilated Cardiomyopathy condition of appellant is neither a specified disability nor is same relatable to broad spectrum of impairments which hinders his full and effective participation in society – Dilated Cardiomyopathy condition of appellant does not bring his case within ambit of either 1995 Act or of 2016 Act – High Court was correct in concluding that Dilated Cardiomyopathy condition would not facilitate any benefit to appellant under Section 47 of Disability Act – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 12, 15, 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Appellant challenges the judgment dated 26.03.2019 in the Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3160/2012, whereunder, the High Court of Judicature at Patna had rejected the seaman’s Claim for disability compensation[under clause 21 of the National Maritime Board Agreement and thereby endorsed the order dated 07.10.2011 of the Shipping Corporation of India. According to the SCI, the appellant’s was not a case of accidental injury during duty on the vessel and therefore, only severance compensation is payable to the appellant. This is because the Seaman is capable of performing other kinds of job and his day-to-day normal work is not affected.
Findings of Court:
Question then is, whether the term “injury”, should be construed in the manner suggested by the appellant’s counsel as anything which diminishes the health status of a seaman. Such broad interpretation in the context of the specific expression in the agreement would in our view, efface the intent of the agreement between the parties. Merely because of the beneficial objective, the clear expression in the agreement must not be ignored to give another meaning which could not have been the intention or the understanding, of the contracting parties.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. The appellant challenges the judgment dated 26.03.2019 in the Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3160/2012, whereunder, the High Court of Judicature at Patna had rejected the seaman’s Claim for disability compensation[under clause 21 of the National Maritime Board Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the Agreement”)] and thereby endorsed the order dated 07.10.2011 (Annexure P21) of the Shipping Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SCI’ for short).According to the SCI, the appellant’s was not a case of accidental injury during duty on the vessel and therefore, only severance compensation is payable to the appellant. This is because the Seaman is capable of performing other kinds of job and his day-to-day normal work is not affected.
2. The appellant was earlier registered in the SCI’s offshore fleet service but at the relevant time he was released at his own request with effect from 19.08.1996 and transferred to the SCI’s foreign going seaman’s roster, with fresh registration. Those in seaman’s roster category, are engaged on contract, specific for the sea going vessel. The appellant joined as a crew on the 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.
3. On the above facts, Mr. V. Chidambresh, the learned Senior Counsel argues that seaman is entitled to 100% disability compensation under Clause 21 of the Agreement. According to the Senior Counsel, Dilated Cardiomyopathy or heart’s reduced blood pumping capacity, should be understood as an internal injury covered by Clause 5.9.F (ii) of the Agreement which speaks of “A rating on being medically unfit for sea service at seas as a result of injury whilst in employment”. The term “injury”, according to the counsel should cover anything impairing the health of the appellant. Mr. Chidambresh argues that injury need not be manifested externally or blood oozing kind but should also coveran impaired heart. The appellant’s counsel relies on an article on Marine Safety, by Mr.Dilipan Thomas and also the writings of Mr.Markas Ollie Barker to argue that cardio vascular disease is one of the several occupational diseases about which, the seafarers have been cautioned by the authors. The failure by the SCI to accommodate the seaman in an alternative job(suitable for the appellant’s medical condition) is next contended to be in contravention of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Disability Act”).
4. Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri, the learned counsel for the SCI per contra contends that the seaman never suffered any accidental injury during the sea voyage on the vessel and since the disability compensation is restricted only to cases of incapacitation resulting from injury during the voyage, the claim for disability compensation was rightly rejected by the High Court and the SCI authority. Mr. Suri highlights that the Claimant’s heart condition does not fall within the contours of an “injury” for the purpose of Clause 5.9.F (ii). It is, therefore, argued that the appellant is covered by Clause 25, which applies to cases of persons declared medically unfit for sea service instead of Clause 21, which is triggered in cases of 100% disability suffered during and in course of employment. According to the SCI’s counsel, a person may be unfit for Seaman’s duty but may be 100% fit for doing another job of general nature. Refuting the appellant’s argument on the footing of the Disability Act, Mr. Suri argues that Dilated Cardiomyopathy is nowhere mentioned in the Disability Act and therefore an alternate job, suitable for the seaman’s medical condition, cannot be claimed under the Act. Adverting to the temporary nature of the appellant’s engagement as a freelance seafarer and his contractual engagement for about 9 months (from 29.09.
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, particularly regarding the definition of disability, covera....
Master mariner treated as seaman for recovery remedies; participation without jurisdiction objection estops later challenge; writ court refuses interference absent pleaded jurisdictional error and to....
The court clarified liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act requires a direct causal link between employment activities and the resulting injuries or diseases.
(1) It is functional disability and not just physical disability which is determining factor in assessing whether claimant-workman has incurred total disablement.(2) If disablement incurred in an acc....
Functional incapacity determines total disablement, overriding medical assessments if it incapacitates work ability.
The court affirmed that an employee traveling in a Goods Auto Rickshaw is covered under the insurance policy, and compensation must reflect the claimant's permanent functional disability.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.