Back
1974 Supreme(Ker) 106
Judges : P.SUBRAMONIAN POTI,K.K.NARENDRAN
K.P.KURIAN - Appellant
Versus
MANAGING PARTNER, HINDUSTAN SHIPPING COMPANY - Respondent
Case No : A. S. No. 296 of 1971
Decided On : 07/17/1974
Advocates Appeared :
K. Ravindranathan Nair; For Appellant R. G. Dias; For Respondent
The key legal point established is that the assessment of disablement and the entitlement to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act are primarily determined by the Medical Officer's assessment, and the injured workman is entitled to the full amount of compensation under the Act.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation - Permanent Partial Disablement - S.4, S.3, S.2(g) - The court discussed the provisions of S.4, S.3, and S.2(g) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, which determine the amount of compensation and the employer's liability for compensation. The court emphasized that the assessment of disablement and the percentage of loss of earning capacity are primarily matters for the Medical Officer, and the Commissioner is expected to accept the Medical Officer's views in the absence of other evidence. The court also held that the injured workman's claim for a lesser amount does not justify the Commissioner in awarding an amount less than that to which the injured workman is entitled under the Act. The court referred to a decision of the Rangoon High Court to support its view that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to award compensation lesser than that laid down in the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a driver, sustained severe injuries in a car accident while employed by the respondent. The Commissioner found the permanent partial disablement to be 30% loss of earning capacity and awarded compensation of Rs. 2940. The appellant appealed, contending that the injuries caused permanent disablement and the Commissioner was not justified in reducing the loss of earning capacity to 30%.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 4900 as compensation for a 50% loss of earning capacity, as assessed by the Medical Officer. The court allowed the appeal with costs.
Issues: The issues included the assessment of permanent partial disablement, the entitlement to compensation, and the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to award compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principles established include the primacy of the Medical Officer's assessment of disablement, the entitlement of the injured workman to the full amount of compensation under the Act, and the lack of jurisdiction for the Commissioner to award compensation lesser than that laid down in the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was directed to pay Rs. 4900 as compensation to the appellant workman.
1. The applicant in W.C. No. 176 of 1970 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ernakulam is the appellant. The only respondent is Opposite Party I before the Commissioner. Opposite Party II, the State Insurance Officer, Trivandrum and Opposite Party III, the Chembra Peak Estates, are not made parties in this appeal. The appellant-applicant met with an accident while he was employed as a driver in the respondent's car on 15 91968 and he sustained severe injuries.
2. The fact of employment, the accident and the nature of injuries were not disputed by the employer. On 15 91968 when the appellant was driving the car K.L.K. 5842 at a place called Koduvally the car collided with a tractor and the appellant sustained a fracture of his right leg, right rib and right reararm. The appellant had to be treated in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam for four months. The appellant had a valid driving licence when he was involved in the accident.
3. The Associate Professor, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam who treated the appellant issued the medical certificate marked as Ext. P1 in the case. As per Ext. P11 though the fracture is united with shortening of 2.5 c.m., there is limitation of movements of hip and knee. The Associate Professor has stated in Ext. P1 that the disability produced by the injury is 50% of earning capacity.
4. On the evidence before him the Commissioner found that the monthly wages of the appellant-applicant for purpose of S.5 was Rs. 152.50p. But the, Commissioner came to the conclusion that the permanent partial disablement of the appellant is only 30% loss of earning capacity and awarded only Rs. 2940/-. It is against the above order of the Commissioner that the applicant-workman has come in appeal.
5. One of the contentions of the appellant is that having found that the injuries have caused permanent disablement the Commissioner was not justified in reducing the loss of earning capacity to 30%. The contention of the respondent Opposite Party is that in the application for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation the appellant-applicant has claimed only a lump sum of Rs. 2940/-and hence he is precluded from contending now that he is entitled to an amount which is more than the amount claimed in the application for compensation. The doctor who treated the applicant was exa-, mined as a witness and the certificate was marked as Ext. P1 on 112 1971. The Opposite Party I did not cross-examine the doctor.
6. S.4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 deals with the amount of compensation. S.4 (c) is as follows:
"4. (c) where permanent partial disablement results from the injury
(i) in the case of an injury specified in Part II of Schedule I such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury, and
(ii) in the case of an 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 permanently caused by the injury..
Explanation: Where more injuries than one are caused by the same accident, the amount of compensation payable under this head shall be aggregated but not so in any case as to exceed the amount which would have been payable if permanent total disablement had resulted from the injuries;"
S. 3 which deals with the employer's liability for compensation says that if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of the Act. S.2 (g) which defines "partial disablement" says that where the disablement is of a permanent nature, such disablement as reduces his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at that time will b
