1. Employee's claim for compensation for permanent disability resulting from a workplace accident — Appeal against High Court order setting aside the Commissioner's award. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 927
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, JJ.
Suresh Paswan - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Kla Construction Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2022
Decided On : 16-09-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Choudhary, AOR Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv. Ms. Swati Bansal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Shankar, AOR Mr. Pulkit Tare, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Choudhary, AOR Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Adv. Ms. Swati Bansal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Shankar, AOR Mr. Pulkit Tare, AOR
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Injury in course of employment – Reasonable compensation has be awarded to workman who has suffered permanent disability.
Injury in course of employment – Reasonable compensation has be awarded to workman who has suffered permanent disability.
Subject
Compensation - Employees' Compensation
Headnote
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 10 – Injury in course of employment – Compensation of Rs.3,74,364/- awarded by Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, reversed by High Court in appeal – 60% permanent disability suffered by appellant – Medical Board constituted pursuant to order passed by High Court examined injured employee after a period of approximately nine years from date of accident – At relevant time, employer did not make any application before Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation to constitute a Medical Board and injured be examined by Medical Board – Employer ought to have made such request before Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation at the earliest opportunity – Considering fact that appellant did suffer injuries due to fall and at relevant time, it affected his 60% earning capacity, it may not be that nothing was to be awarded to appellant-injured employee by way of compensation – Appellant is entitled to total sum of Rs.3,76,236/- towards compensation with interest for disability suffered by him, which appellant has already withdrawn earlier – Such amount shall be treated as full and final settlement of claim of appellant towards compensation. (Paras 3, 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in First Appeal No. 511 of 2016, by which the High Court has allowed appeal preferred by respondent-employer and has set aside order passed by Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarding compensation of Rs.3,74,364/- to the appellant herein, the injured employee has preferred present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Amount of Rs. 3,76,236/- withdrawn by the appellant be treated as full and final settlement of claim of the appellant towards compensation with interest for the disability suffered by him. Balance amount lying in deposit with the High Court/Commissioner may be withdrawn by respondent/employer, if not withdrawn so far.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over the validity and percentage of permanent disability based on conflicting medical certificates and a subsequent Medical Board report. (Para 2 )
3. A Medical Board report issued years after the accident may be outweighed by contemporaneous evidence if the employer failed to seek a medical board earlier. (Para 3 )
4. Compensation is warranted where injuries occurred and affected earning capacity at the time of the accident, regardless of subsequent medical findings years later. (Para 3 )
5. High Court order set aside; previous partial withdrawal of deposited funds treated as full and final compensation settlement. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. How should a court treat a Medical Board report issued several years after a workplace accident when a contemporaneous disability certificate exists?
The court may consider the timing of the report. If the employer failed to request a Medical Board at the earliest opportunity before the Commissioner, a report issued years later may not completely negate the initial disability assessment. (Para 3 )
7. Is an injured employee entitled to compensation if a later medical report finds no permanent disability but the initial injury affected earning capacity?
Yes, if the employee suffered injuries that affected their earning capacity at the relevant time, they may still be entitled to compensation to meet the ends of justice. (Para 3 )
8. Can a partial withdrawal of deposited funds be treated as a full and final settlement of a compensation claim?
Yes, the court may determine that a specific amount already withdrawn by the claimant, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, shall meet the ends of justice as a full and final settlement. (Para 4 , 5 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in First Appeal No. 511 of 2016, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent – employer and has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarding compensation of Rs.3,74,364/- to the appellant herein, the injured employee has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. It was the case on behalf of the appellant that while he was working at the construction site under the respondent-employer, he fell down from the roof of the first floor and suffered grievous injuries, which resulted in 60% permanent disability. The appellant relied upon the disability certificate dated 13.09.2009 issued by Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, Gardiner Road Hospital, Patna certifying that the appellant sustained 60% disability, which was as a result of the accident. It appears that the respondent – employer disputed the disability certificate dated 13.09.2009 as well as his disability as assessed 60% under the said disability certificate. The learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,74,364/- towards the compensation taking the permanent disability of the appellant as 60%.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarding Rs. 3,74,364/-towards the compensation considering the permanent disability of the appellant as 60%, the respondent – employer preferred appeal before the High Court. Before the High Court, an application was submitted by the employer to constitute a Medical Board to examine the permanent disability of the appellant. By order dated 21.03.2017, the High Court directed the Medical Superintendent of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital to constitute a Medical Board to examine the disability of the appellant. The Medical Board submitted the report dated 09.11.2017 and according to the said report the appellant did not suffer any permanent disability. Therefore, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 herein and has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. Hence, the present appeal is at the instance of the original claimant – employee.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. We have also gone through and considered the earlier disability certificate dated 13.09.2009 relied upon by the claimant as well as the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation as well as the report dated 09.11.2017 of the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order passed by the High Court dated 21.03.2017. It is true that the Medical Board in its report dated 09.11.2017 has opined that the appellant has not suffered any permanent disability. However, at the same time, it is required to be noted that the disability certificate issued by Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, Gardiner Road Hospital, Patna was of the year 2009 and the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order passed by the High Court examined the injured employee after a period of approximately nine years from the date of accident. At the relevant time, the employer did not make any application before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation to constitute a Medical Board and the injured be examined by the Medical Board. The employer ought to have made such a request before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation at the earliest opportunity. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the appellant did suffer the injuries due to fall and at the relevant time, it affected his 60% earning capacity, it may not be that nothing was to be awarded to the appellant – injured employee by way of compensation.
4. It is repor
