The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a qualified medical practitioner to assess the loss of earning capacity for the purpose of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, limiting the authority's discretion in quantifying compensation.

M. F. SALDANHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an Appeal preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and it raises issues of some consequence particularly in view of the grievance projected that due to absence of specific guidelines and parameters which are to be defined by this Court, that indiscriminate orders are being passed in compensation proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the total absence of any standards with regard to the manner in which the compensation is being assessed has resulted is some runaway orders, and it is therefore imperative that the methodology to be adopted by the authority to be specified. The present case is one more instance where an order has been indiscriminately passed, without any reason having been specified meaning thereby reasons that pass legal sanction. That the claimant may have sustained some injuries and therefore qualifies for compensation is not disputed by the Insurance Company but what is basically contended, and to my mind with considerable justification is that the compensation must be fair and more importantly, correct. If the compensation awarded is higher than what is legitimately done, the order would require rectification, but I do see considerable justification in the submission advanced by the learned Counsel who represents the appellants when he points out to this Court that if specific guidelines are laid down, and if the authorities are directed to observe these guidelines, that the scope for grievance itself will stand considerably reduced apart from the unnecessary backlog that it would eliminate. What is important is that the scope of the appeal would be limited only to cases where the authority has genuinely gone wrong. The insurance Companies are burdened to some extent because even a wrong order entails the requirement of having to deposit the whole of the amount awarded and it is precious little justification that some of it may be returned after about a decade or more.

( 2 ) MR. Shankar, learned Counsel who represents the appellants has drawn my attention to Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and in particular, to the provisions of Section 4 (1) (c) of the Act both in its unamended and amended form. Since the issue is of some consequence, the provision of Section 4 (1) (c) (ii) as also explanation to that Section are reproduced below :

"section 4 (1) (c) (ii ). In the case of any injury not specified in Schedule I such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury. Explanation (II): In assessing the loss of earning capacity for the purpose of Sub-clause (ii), the qualified medical practitioner shall have due regard to the percentages of loss of earning capacity in relation to different injuries specified in Schedule. "

( 3 ) TO summarise, the contention put forward by learned Counsel, after the amendment, which obviously became necessary because of the unfortunate experience in such cases where the method of quantifying the compensation was left to the arbitrary discretion of the authority which varied from individual to individual like the proverbial Chancellor's Foot, the Legislature has now specified a more reliable and scientific method and that is to be adopted by the authority concerned. In essence, what the law now prescribes after the amendment is that a qualified medical practitioner shall be required to assess not only the degree of disability but more importantly, the loss of earning capacity. These two terms are not synonymous and in fact would give rise to a lot of confusion. Mr. Shankar draws my attention to the Decision of the Supreme court reported in Pratap Narayan Singh Dev v. Srinivasa and Anr. (1976-I-LLJ-235) whereby the Court had occasion to interpret certain Sections of the unamended Act and the Court while interpreting Sub-clause (i) of Section 2 ther

Click Here to Read the rest of this document