225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-15532-CII-2024 in FAO No.4017 of 2010 Date of decision : 03.09.2025 JANG SINGH ....Appellant Versus M/S SHIV SHANKAR RICE MILLS AND ORS. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Himmat Singh, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.

Mr. Prem Chand Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.1.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

CM-15532-CII-2024 This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for fixing the actual date in the main appeal.

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed.

Main appeal is taken on Board today itself for hearing.

FAO No.4017 of 2010 Challenge is to the order dated 17.03.2009 passed by Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now known as Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923).

2. The claimant is in appeal. Claimant has been rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 75% in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. The Commissioner has assessed the compensation taking the permanent disability of the appellant to the extent of 75% and awarded compensation of Rs.2,37,510/-.

3. Counsel for the appellant submits that keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant and the fact that he was rendered permanently disabled to the extent of 75%, his functional disability ought to have been taken into consideration. He relies upon ratio of law laid down by Larger Bench of Supreme Court in the case of ‘Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata’, (1976) 1 SCC 289, which has been followed and reiterated in the case of ‘K. Janardhan vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another’, (2008) 8 SCC 518, observing as under:

“xxx xxx xxx”

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one argument during the course of the hearing. He has submitted that the claimant - appellant being a tanker driver, the loss of his right leg ipso facto meant a total disablement as understood in terms of Section 2(l)(e) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and as such the appellant was entitled to have his compensation computed on that basis. In support of this plea, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Anr. (1976) 1 SCC 289. The cited case pertained to a carpenter who had suffered an amputation of his left arm from the elbow and this court held that this amounted to a total disability as the injury was of such a nature that the claimant had been disabled from all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. It was observed as under :

“5. The expression "total disablement" has been defined in Section 2(l)(e) of the Act as follows :

"(1) 'total disablement' means such disablement whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement."

It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his finding as follows :

"The injured workman in this case is carpenter by profession .... By loss of the left hand above the elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only."

This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to assail it on any ground and it does not require to be corrected in this appeal. There is also no justification for the other argument which has been advanced with reference to Item 3 of Part II of Schedule 1, because it was not the appellant's case before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm was from 8" from tip of acromion to less than 4 below the tip of olecranon. A new case cannot t