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 cover an 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 29.0