Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(Online)(AP) 4

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
,
Sree Ramulu N. v. B. Lakshmi Narayana and Another
C.M.A. No. 1210 of 2001 | C.M.A. No. 335 of 2002 | C.M.A. No. 550 of 2002 | C.M.A. No. 1685 of 2002 | C.M.A. No. 2197 of 2003 | C.M.A. No. 3406 of 2002 | C.M.A. No. 2380 of 2002 | C.M.A. No. 856 of 2001 | C.M.A. No. 2380 of 2002

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N. Subba Rao, Mrs. A. Malathi, Mr. T.S. Rayalu
For the Respondents: Mr. T. Ramulu, Mrs. S.V. Sujatha, Mrs. M. Seetha Devi, Mr. A.V.K.S. Prasad, Mr. R. Venkat Rao, Mr. J. Janakirami Reddy, Mr. B. Devanand, Mr. Srinivasa Rao Vutla

The court determined that total disablement under the Workmen's Compensation Act is established when injuries completely incapacitate a claimant from performing their previous job, warranting maximum compensation.

Headnote:(A) Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 2(1)(1), 2(1)(g) and 4 - Total disablement - The court considered whether injuries suffered by claimants constituted 'total disablement' warranting maximum compensation - Claimants contended injuries rendered them unfit for previous employment, whereas respondents argued for partial disablement based on medical assessments, citing varied disabilities in different cases - In numerous appeals, the court found that where claimants were deemed unfit for their previous jobs, they suffered 100% loss of earning capacity regardless of other potential employments. (Paras 3, 11-12, 28-37)

Facts of the case:
Multiple claim cases considered for workmen's compensation due to injuries sustained while engaged in employment. Claimants sought recognition of total disability based on their inability to return to prior employment post-injury, with varying medical assessments influencing initial compensation awards.

Findings of Court:
The court repeatedly found that if a claimant was deemed unfit for the employment they were engaged in at the time of the injury, they should be recognized as suffering from total disablement - thus justifying maximum compensation. The court modified compensation amounts to reflect a 100% loss of earning capacity in several cases due to clear evidence that the injuries caused complete incapacity for previous roles.

Issues: The main issues include the appropriate evaluation of 'total disablement' based on injuries, the relevance of medical assessments versus the actual work capability of claimants at the time of accidents, and the calculation of compensation based on loss of earning capacity.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the determination of total disablement should focus on how injuries affect the claimant's ability to perform their specific job roles. Where significant injuries preclude claimants from their specific employment responsibilities, total disablement should be acknowledged regardless of theoretical capacities to perform different jobs. Thus, a medical opinion alone is insufficient to balance against actual work capability.

Result: Appeals allowed in several claims reflecting total loss of earning capacity; compensation recalibrated to reflect full 100% earnings loss attributed to injuries.

Table of Content
1. qualification for total disablement (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. provisions of workmen's compensation act (Para 8 , 9)
3. interpretation of injury types under the act (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. legal principles of loss of earning capacity (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. assessment of compensation and appeals (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. final judgments and decisions (Para 34 , 35 , 36)

1. Heard Mr. N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in C.M.A. Nos. 1210 of 2001, 335, 550 and 1685 of 2002, 2274 of 2001, 3406 of 2002 and 2197 of 2003, Mrs. A. Malathi, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.M.A. No. 2380 of 2002, Mr. T.S. Rayalu, learned counsel for the petitioner in C.M.A. No. 856 of 2001 and Mr. T. Ramulu, learned counsel for the respondents in C.M.A. No. 1210 of 2001, Mrs. S.V. Sujatha, learned counsel for the respondent in C.M.A. No. 335 of 2002, Mrs. M. Seetha Devi, learned counsel for the respondent in C.M.A. No. 550 of 2002, Mr. A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent in C.M.A. No. 856 of 2001 and 1685 of 2002, Mr. R. Venkat Rao, learned counsel for the respondents in C.M.A. No. 2274 of 2001, Mr. J. Janakirami Reddy, learned counsel for respondent in C.M.A. No. 2380 of 2002, Mr. B. Devanand, the learned counsel for respondent in C.M.A. No. 3406 of 2002 and Mr. Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for the respondent in C.M.A. No. 2197 of 2003.

2. In all these cases, a common question of law arises for consideration and so they are being disposed of by a common order with the consent of the counsel for both sides.

3. The question which arises for consideration in these appeals is:
"Having regard to the nature of the injury suffered by the claimants in these cases, whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation erred in not holding that the claimants should be deemed to have suffered 'total disablement' as defined in S.2 (1) (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (presently known as the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923) (for short 'the Act') and award compensation to them on the said basis?"

4. Except in C.M.A. No. 2380 of 2002 where the insurance company is the appellant, in all the other cases the injured - claimant is the appellant.

5. It is the contention of the counsel for the claimants in the above appeals that considering the nature of employment which the claimants were having at the time of the accident, the injuries suffered by them have disabled them from performing the said employment; merely because there is a theoretical possibility that they may perform other jobs, they cannot be said to be suffering from 'permanent partial disablement'; they ought to be considered as suffering from 'total disablement' as defined under S.2 (1) (1) of the Act; the medical opinion is only confined to the physical disability suffered by them and cannot be taken to be a measure of the percentage of loss of their earning capacity; whatever may be the percentage of disability opined by the medical practitioner examined before the Commissioner, in view of their inability to perform the employment / job which they were doing at the time of the accident causing the injury, they should be treated as having suffered 100 per cent loss of earning capacity; and the impugned orders where the Commissioner has taken a view that the degree of disability suffered by them has not caused 100 per cent loss of earning capacity have to be set aside. The learned counsel for the claimants relied upon the following decisions:
Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata , 1976 ACJ 141 (SC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Khader Jilani , 2008 ACJ 1870 (AP); Ballari Rajendra v. G. Gurumurthy , 2001 (1) ALD 423 ; Rayapati Venkateswara Rao v. Mantai Sambasiva Rao, 2001 ACJ 2105 (AP); G. Anjaneyulu v. Alla Seshi Reddy, 2002 ACJ 1392 (AP); Lingampalli Rajam v. Colliery Manager, Morgan's Pit, Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 350 (AP); New India Assura

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(Online)(AP) 4

The court determined that total disablement under the Workmen's Compensation Act is established when injuries completely incapacitate a claimant from performing their previous job, warranting maximum compensation.

Cases Referred (1)