Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 72
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J
Ashok Raybhan Kashide – Appellant
Versus
Shivaji S/o Parbatrao Dhale – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 530 OF 2014 | NFA No. 24/2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Pavankumar S. Agrawal
For the Respondents: Mr Suhas R. Sirsath, Mr Vinodkumar R. Mundada
The court determined that total amputation of a limb results in complete loss of earning capacity, mandating the adjustment of compensation based on statutory provisions for interest.
Headnote:(A) Employees Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 4-A(3)(a) - Compensation due to injury at work - Claimant suffered amputation of right leg resulting in 100% loss of earning capacity, despite lower court's assessment of 75% disability - Court upheld need for interest at 12% per annum as per statutory provisions and recalculated compensation due. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20)
(B) Appeal - Evaluation of compensation - Court held that amputation impacts earning capacity significantly, and prior assessments must be revisited based on evidence presented. (Paras 10, 11, 16)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, a labourer, suffered a crush injury resulting in leg amputation while unloading goods, was receiving a salary of Rs. 6,000/- and claimed total loss of earning capacity. The initial compensation awarded was deemed inadequate.
Findings of Court:
Appellant entitled to Rs. 7,33,860/- in compensation with 12% interest per annum due to total disablement.
Issues: Main issue was the determination of loss of earning capacity due to the injury sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Court stressed the importance of functional disability assessment affecting earning capacity and adjusted compensation accordingly, distinguishing the case from previous judgments.
Result: Appeal allowed with revised compensation and interest adjustments.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. detailed recount of the incident and immediate consequences. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the assessment of loss of earning capacity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's evaluation of disability assessment challenges and ruling. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final assessment of compensation and interest adjustments based on legal precedents. (Para 16 , 19) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment and award passed in NFA No. 24/2012 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division and Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Hingoli by taking aid of Section 23 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under :-
(a) The appellant/original claimant was working as a labour on the vehicle/tempo bearing Registration No. MH-26-H-6590 owned by respondent No. 1. He was getting monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The appellant along with other labours Bajirao Maske, Shaikh Rafik and Sandeep Ubale were discharging their duty on the vehicle on 04.04.2012 at 11.00 a.m. They went to Kabra Marbles, Hingoli. Arvind Wadkute was diving the vehicle. After loading the goods in the vehicle, they arrived at the house of one Mr Patil. The appellant along with other labours were unloading the goods. While unloading the goods, one sheet of granite fell down on the right leg of the appellant. The right leg of the appellant was fractured. Another labour Bajirao Maske also sustained fracture injury to his right hand. The appellant was taken to Naik Hospital at Hingoli. It was a crush injury to right leg of the appellant. The appellant was admitted in the said hospital from 04.04.2012 to 29.04.2012. The right leg of the appellant came to be amputed. According to the appellant, it is a case of 100% permanent disability and it is a loss of 100% earning capacity. However, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division and Commissioner for Employees Compensation has determined permanent disability to the extent of 75% and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,66,930/- including expenses of medical treatment etc.
(b) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division and Commissioner of Employees Compensation, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. Heard Mr Pavankumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/original claimant, Mr Suhas Sirsath, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr Vinodkumar R. Mundada, learned counsel for respondent No.2/United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
4. Mr Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant took me to the relevant paras of the impugned Judgment and coupled with the evidence. He submitted that right leg of the appellant is amputed. Even though Dr. Bhagwan Pundge has stated that appellant’s disability is 75% and disability certificate to that effect is issued vide Exh. 24, it is a case of 100% loss of earning capacity. The appellant was working as a labour. Due to amputation of his right leg, he is unable to discharge his work as a labour. The appellant is entitled to get compensation by holding that it is a case of 100% loss of earning capacity.
5. Mr Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant further invited my attention that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division and Commissioner of Employees Compensation has awarded interest @ 6% per annum which is incorrect in the eye of law. He invited my attention to Section 4-A (3) (a) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 . As per Section 4-A (3) (a), the appellant/original claimant is entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum. He submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division and Commissioner of Employees Compensation needs to be modified by holding that it is a case of 100%
loss of earning capacity.
6. Mr Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/original claimant has placed his reliance on following citations in support of his argument :- (i) Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Shrinivas Sabatra and Another reported in AIR 1976 SC 222 (
