The court affirmed that for scheduled injuries under the Employees' Compensation Act, disability assessment follows the statutory schedule, and new objections regarding insurance policy terms cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage if not pleaded previously.

Order on Board

(Cause title taken from CIS)

1. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act has been filed by the appellant (non-applicant No.3) being aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2023 passed by Commissioner (Workmen Compensation Act)/Labour Court, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) passed in Case No. 201/E.C. Act/2012(Non-Fatal).

2. Respondent No.1/ Claimant filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation / Labour Court, Raipur, pleading, inter alia, that he was working as a Khalasi under the employment of non-applicants No. 1, 2 and 4. On 19.09.2011, while discharging his duties in the course of employment, the claimant met with an accident in which his right hand was seriously injured, resulting in amputation of the right thumb and two fingers. The claimant was immediately taken for treatment to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur. It is pleaded that due to the said accident, the claimant has suffered permanent disability of the right hand and has become functionally handicapped. At the time of the accident, the claimant was about 28 years of age and was earning a monthly wage of Rs. 5,000/-. Despite the permanent disability suffered by the claimant, no compensation has been paid to him by the non-applicants. It is further averred that non-applicant No. 1, the contractor, had insured the claimant against accidental risk with non-applicant No. 3, the insurance company. On account of the permanent disability and consequent loss of earning capacity, the claimant had filed the present claim petition seeking compensation from the non-applicants.

3. The non-applicant No.1/ respondent No. 2 herein submitted his reply and denied the contents of the claim petition. Non-applicant No. 1, in his written statement, has denied that the applicant was his workman at the relevant time. It has been further pleaded that the employees engaged by non-applicant No. 1 were insured with non-applicant No. 3, the Insurance Company, and therefore, in the event of any liability to pay compensation, the same is liable to be indemnified and satisfied by the Insurance Company.

4. The non-applicants No.3/appellant herein submitted its reply and has denied the insurance coverage of the workman. The Insurance Company has also denied the occurrence of the accident on 30.09.2011 and prays for dismissal of the suit.

5. The learned Commissioner, after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, vide impugned award dated 30.09.2023, allowed the claim petition and recorded a finding that the claimant sustained amputation of the right thumb and two adjacent fingers in the alleged accident. It was held that the said injuries fall under Part II of Schedule I of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 and constitute scheduled injuries. The learned Commissioner further held that in view of the statutory provisions, production of a separate disability certificate was not necessary. By applying Part II of Schedule I, the learned Commissioner assessed the permanent disablement of the claimant at 50%, holding that loss of one thumb amounts to 30% permanent disablement and loss of two fingers amounts to 20% permanent disablement. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Commissioner allowed the claim petition and directed non-applicant No. 3–Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,27,705/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Five only) as compensation within a period of one month from the date of the award, failing which the amount was direct