The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of total disablement, the compensation should be assessed under Section 4(1)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the interpretation of total disablement as preventing the workman from continuing the work he was capable of at the time of the accident.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the workman seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation in W.C.Case No.128 of 2014.

2. The fact that the appellant was working as Centring Carpenter in the site of the first respondent is not denied. Similarly, the fact that there was an accident on 23.10.2013 at about 3.15 p.m, as a result of which, the appellant lost all the five fingers in his right hand and sustained fractures in the fingers in left hand is also not denied. It is also not in dispute that the five fingers in the right hand have been amputated and due to the fractures the fingers in the left hand are bent.

3. The Commissioner, Workmen Compensation based on the evidence of the Doctor fixed the loss of earning capacity at 65% and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,97,843/-. Aggrieved by the same, the Workman has come up with this appeal.

4. Head Mr.K.A.Ravindran, learned Counsel appearing for Mr.S.A.Shanmugaraj for appellant and Mr.C.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent - The New India Assurance Company Ltd. The first respondent remained ex-parte and he had not entered appearance.

5. Mr.K.A.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant, being a carpenter having lost his five fingers in his right hand, has been permanently disabled from doing the work of carpenter in future. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the accident has resulted in total disablement within the meaning of section 2(l) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned counsel would further contend that the compensation payable in the case of total disablement should have been assessed under section 4(1)(b) of the Act and not under section 4(1)(c).

6. Per contra Mr.C.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for The New India Assurance Company Ltd., would submit that under the Section 4(1)(c) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the compensation loss of earning capacity should be fixed on the basis of percentage fixed under the Schedule and the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has rightly fixed the loss of earning capacity at 65%, taking into account the injuries suffered by the appellant with reference to the Schedule.

7. In the light of the above contention, the following substantial question of law arises for determination of this appeal :

Whether in the case of the total disablement, the Court is bound to grant only the percentage of disability as fixed by the Schedule of the Act?

8. The facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the appellant, who was a carpenter, cannot do the job of carpenter any more. The Section 2(l) of the Workmen Compensation Act defines the total disablement as follows :

“”Total disablement” means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapabilities a workmen for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement. “

Section 4(1)(b) provides that if permanent total disablement results from the injury, an amount equal to 60% of the monthly wages of the injured worker multiplied by relevant factor would be appropriate compensation.

9. The Commissioner, Workmen Compensation has not adverted to the fact that the injury resulted in total disablement. He has straight away gone ahead and fixed the compensation on the basis of the Schedule of the Workmen Compensation Act. The Doctor has deposed that the appellant cannot continue to do the work of carpenter. It is common knowledge that a carpenter cannot do his work without five fingers in one hand. Therefore, the fact that the injury has resulted in total disablement as contemplated under 4(1)(b) of the Act is obvious.

10. Under such circumstances, what would be the amount of compensation payable to the workman was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo V. Shrinivas Sabata and another reported in 1976 ACJ 141. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion