HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal from Order No.360 of 2014 Sri Rajesh Kumar Sharma ………Appellant Versus Uttaranchal Iron and Ispat Ltd. and another ………Respondents Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the appellant appeared through video conferencing.

Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for the respondent.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been preferred by the claimant/appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 13.10.2013 passed by the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Dehradun, in Case No. 50 of 2012, Sri Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs. Uttaranchal Iron & Ispat Limited and another. By the said order, the learned Commissioner held that an amount of Rs. 1,87,617/- has already been paid to the claimant during the pendency of the proceedings, and that in the absence of any certificate of disability indicating the percentage of permanent disability, no further compensation could be assessed or granted. The appellant contends that the learned Commissioner erred in law in denying him compensation for permanent disability resulting from the amputation of his left arm, an injury that admittedly arose out of and during the course of his employment.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the appellant was employed with respondent no.1, Uttaranachal Iron & Ispat Ltd., and while performing his duties on 06.02.2003, he suffered a serious accident, following which he was treated at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. The injury resulted in the amputation of his left arm, and the appellant asserts that such injury constitutes 100% disability within the meaning of Part-I of the First Schedule of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The appellant filed a claim petition seeking due compensation. The respondents did not dispute the accident or its connection with the employment. The employer’s insurer also paid Rs.1,87,617/- during the pendency of the proceedings towards compensation. The learned Commissioner, however, took the view that mere amputation did not automatically establish the percentage of disability unless supported by a medical certificate specifying the degree of functional disability, and in the absence of such proof, no additional compensation could be awarded. Hence, this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner committed a grave error in ignoring the First Schedule of the Act, which enumerates the nature of injuries and the percentage of disability corresponding to each. It is argued that amputation of an arm above the elbow is statutorily recognized as permanent total disability, and therefore, the appellant was not required to produce a separate medical certificate to establish what the statute itself already declares. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the discharge summary issued by Safdarjung Hospital was placed on record, clearly showing the amputation, and since the respondents did not deny the injury or dispute the medical records, the Commissioner ought to have accepted the disability as proved and determined compensation in accordance with the statutory formula.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant further argues that the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation intended to compensate workmen for loss of earning capacity resulting from injuries arising in the course of employment. It is contended that once the occurrence of the accident and the amputation were undisputed, the Commissioner was duty-bound to determine compensation in a manner consistent with the principles of social welfare underlying the Act. The learned counsel submits that by refusing to compute the compensation only because no certificate quantifying the disability was filed. The Commissioner elevated a procedural requirement over substantive justice. It further argued by the learned counsel that the nature and extent of disability were matters admitte