Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY, S.SUBHASHAN REDDY
Charan Singh - Appellant
Versus
G.Vittal Reddy - Respondent
Decided On : 03-07-03
Held : Court concerned with permanent partial disablement as contained in clause (c) of section 4 (1 ). The requirement in case or non-schedule injury as contemplated by the statute is that the assessment of the percentage of permanent total disablement proportionate to the loss of earning capacity has to be made by the qualified medical practitioner, and, in the instant case, it is not disputed that the doctor who was examined on behalf of the claimants was not qualified medical practitioner and in fact, it is accepted that he falls under this category of qualified medical practitioner. If that is to be taken into consideration, whether the evidence of the doctor who had treated the workmen concerned, can be treated as the essential requirement keeping in view the above provision. As it is, Workmen s compensation Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for protecting the interests of Workmen who are the victims of accidents during the course of their employment and, therefore, clear-cut method has been stipulated in the Act itself. In case of scheduled injuries, even in the absence of any medical evidence, the compensation will automatically follow as per the schedule to the said Act. But, the difficulty comes only in the case of non-scheduled injury in respect of which, assessment has to be made by the qualified medical practitioner as contemplated under the Act. From this, it cannot be concluded that the qualified medical practitioner should be only the medical practitioner who has treated the workmen concerned. If that is to be accepted, it leads to several anomalies. The doctor who treated the workmen may not be available for various reasons and the workmen cannot be expected to stay at a particular station forever. Further, the permanent disability cannot be assessed immediately on the next day of the sustaining the injuries.
Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 4 ; Interpretation of Statutes - Assessment of Disability - when section is very clear and specific regarding assessment to be made by a qualified medical practitioner, no reason to import additional meaning - A provision in a beneficial piece of legislation has to interpreted in such a way as to assure the benefit and not to deny the benefit that is sought to be conferred by a statute.
Held : if Section 4 is read with reference to schedule-I, the inevitable conclusion is that in case of non- scheduled injuries, the percentage of total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity has to be assessed by the qualified medical practitioner and it is not necessary that the Doctor, who treated the workman should be the only assessing authority. It is also not in dispute that the doctor, who was examined before the commissioner fell within the definition of qualified medical practitioner.
Under those circumstances, we are of the considered view that Section 4 (l) (c) does not stipulate a requirement of assessment by the medical practitioner who had treated the workmen concerned at the first instance. It is always open for the qualified medical practitioner to assess the loss of disability vis-a-vis loss of earning capacity with reference to the injuries sustained by him and if the employer or the Insurance Company was not satisfied with the assessment made by the medical practitioner, whose evidence was produced, contra evidence ought to have been adduced by the Insurance Company to rebut or impeach the evidence of the medical officer adduced on behalf of the workmen. In the absence of such evidence, we cannot find fault with the order of the learned Commissioner.
( 1 ) ALL these appeals were filed by the workmen against the orders passed by the learned single Judge in the appeals filed against the orders of the Commissioner for Workmen s compensation. Since common question of law is involved in all these Appeals, they are disposed of by this common order.
( 2 ) IN a lorry accident that took place, several workmen including the crew of the lorry sustained injuries. Since the accident had taken place out of and in the course of employment of the workmen, claims were laid before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, nizamabad, who was designated as the commissioner for Workmen s Compensation under the provisions of the Workmen s compensation Act, 1923. Evidence was adduced by the workmen concerned. Not only the workmen were examined but the doctor who had issued Disability Certificate was also examined. The learned Commissioner relying on the evidence of the workmen and also the medical evidence coupled with the certificate of disability, allowed the claims fixing various percentages of disability depending on the nature of injuries sustained by them.
( 3 ) AGAINST those orders of Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, the Insurance company carried the matter in appeal before this Court. The learned single Judge after hearing the batch of appeals, found fault with the order of the Commissioner on the ground that the doctor who was examined by the workmen- claimants was not the doctor who had treated the workmen, and, therefore, even though the matter required remand, reduced the compensation to 50% and allowed the appeals filed by the Insurance Company to that extent. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned single Judge, the present appeals under Letters patent have been filed.
( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant-claimants submits that the order of the learned single Judge is wholly illegal and contrary to law. The learned Judge failed to take into consideration the provisions of the workmen s Compensation Act relating to assessment of compensation under Section 4 and that the finding of learned single Judge that the doctor who treated the workmen ought to have been examined for assessing the proper disability with reference to the medical evidence is not correct and the same is liable to be set aside.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submits that the order of the learned single judge is based on consent and concession made by both the counsel for parties and that the learned Judge was inclined to remand the matter for fresh consideration as the doctor who treated workmen ought to be examined. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the order as passed by the learned single Judge is quite legal and valid and same needs no interference by this Court.
( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the accidents had taken place and the workmen employed on the lorries received several injuries. Accordingly claims were made by them depending on the injuries vis-a-vis the loss of earning capacity. Before the Commissioner, the injured workmen as well as doctor were examined and loss of disabilities vis-a-vis loss of earning capacity was assessed on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Commissioner.
( 7 ) THE question that calls for consideration is whether the doctor who has treated the injured workmen has to be necessarily examined before the Commissioner for assessing the compensation under the provisions of the Act.
( 8 ) FOR this purpose, it is necessary to refer to Section 4 of the Workmen s Compensation Act wherein the compensation was required to be assessed in cases of death, total disablement and also permanent partial disablement. Section 4, which is relevant, is extracted below:"4. Amount of compensation: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:- (a) Where death results from the injury an amount equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
