Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 787
2025 DHC 1823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Md. Safat & Ors – Respondents
FAO 209 of 2021 & CM APPL. 29987 of 2021, FAO 255 of 2021 & CM APPL. 40659 of 2021
Decided On : 24-03-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. Yuvraj Sharma, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Nain and Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advs., Mr. Rakesh Kumar Pant, Adv., Mr. D.M. Sharma, Adv.
The court upheld a 100% loss of earning capacity for a driver with 20% permanent disability, emphasizing that the nature of the injuries severely impaired his ability to work as a driver.
Headnote:(A) Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 4, 4A(3)(b) - Findings regarding loss of earning capacity - Appellant/insurance company challenged the assessment of 100% loss of earning capacity against a medical disability certificate indicating 20% disability; court confirmed 100% assessment due to driver's profession and permanent disability preventing employment as driver. (Para 9, 14, 26)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Commissioner’s territorial jurisdiction upheld despite the accident occurring outside jurisdiction as insurer operates in the area. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
The registered owner of the vehicle failed to appear before the Commissioner leading to an ex-parte decision awarding compensation of Rs. 9,09,888/- to the claimant, who suffered significant injury while employed as a driver. (Paras 1, 4)
Findings of Court:
The 100% loss of earning capacity due to permanent injury was upheld, and the penalty was legally imposed on the owner for delay. (Paras 24, 26)
Issues: Assessing if the injuries were sustained in the course of employment and the associated compensation entitlement. (Para 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court predominantly recognized that permanent disability in a driver directly impacts earning capacity despite medical assessments indicating lower permanent disability percentages. (Para 14)
Result: FAO No. 209/2021 dismissed; FAO No. 255/2021 partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of compensation claims and injury context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. findings and consequences related to the injury claim. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. challenges raised by appellants regarding disability assessment. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's reasoned analysis of jurisdiction and disability assessment. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. clarifications concerning definitions of disability under the e.c. act. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. principles regarding loss of earning capacity evaluation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. conclusions about penalty, recovery rights, and compensation release. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. final disposal of appeals and directives. (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT :
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
1. This common judgment shall decide the afore-noted two appeals which have been preferred by the appellant/insurance company and the registered owner of the offending bus bearing No. UP-32-Z-1506 whereby they have assailed the order/judgment dated 28.04.2021 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, whereby the claim for compensation filed by the respondent No.1/injured/employee was allowed granting him a total compensation of Rs. 9,09,888/- payable with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 23.10.2013 till its realization, which liability was fastened on the shoulders of the appellant/insurance company besides additionally directing the respondent No.3/Sh. Satyekam Shashtri, the registered owner of the vehicle to pay an additional penalty of Rs. 4,54,944/- in terms of Section 4(A)(3)(b) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, [E. C. Act]. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant/Insurance Company has been granted the right to recover the amount of compensation of Rs. 9,09,888/- with interest from the respondent No.3/appellant/registered owner of the vehicle.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Shorn off unnecessary details, admittedly, respondent No.3/appellant who has since died and is represented through his legal heir-Rajbeer was the registered owner of the vehicle in question, which was claimed to have been handed over for management and business purposes to one Mr. Imran Qureshi and respondent No.1 was employed as a driver, who lodged a claim under Section 22 of the E.C. Act to the effect that on 23.09.2013, he had gone on a business trip to Saharanpur and on his way back, one of the tyre got punctured and he mounted on to the tool box to bring down an additional tyre placed in the tool box of the vehicle; and when he was on the top of it and was struggling to have the additional tyre offloaded from the tool box, the jack stemmed to leverage the vehicle got de-affixed and due to sudden heavy jerk, he slipped and fell from the tool box down on the surface and sustained grievous injury on his left hand.
3. Suffice to state that respondent No.1/claimant/employee was medically treated and suffered permanent impairment in relation to the left upper limb to the extent of 20% in terms of the certificate dated 12.07.2017 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi. Respondent No.1/claimant/ employee agitated that due to a permanent disability, he had become 100% disabled for the purpose of employment as a driver.
4. Needless to state that the vehicle was insured for third party risk including its driver with respondent No.2/appellant/insurance company for the relevant period. During the course of the inquiry before the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation neither Imran Qureshi/respondent No.1, nor respondent No.3/registered owner appeared despite due service of summons and were proceeded ex-parte.
5. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues for adjudication:-
(i) Whether injury was caused in the course of the employment?
(ii) If yes, what amount of relief and what directions are necessary in this regard?
6. It is borne out from the record that the respondent/claimant/ employee examined himself by filing his affidavit (Ex.AW1/A) in his evidence and proving the relevant document viz., Disability Certificate, copy of Medical Treatment Docu
