Functional Disability & Not Just Physical Disability A Determining Factor In Assessing Whether Workman Incurred Total Disablement: SC
The Supreme Court has set aside an impugned order of the High Court, wherein the High Court erred in assessing the disablement of the Petitioner from 100% to 40%. The Court observed that the term “total disablement” under Section 2 (1)(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (Act) specifies functional disability and not just physical disability when determining total disablement.
The Court further specified that Section 2(1)(1) does not minimize the applicability of Section 4(1)(b) but rather adds to it by specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there is permanent total disablement.
The two-judge bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held, “In light of the aforesaid decisions and the definition of the term “total disablement” as provided by clause (l) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act, it is the functional disability and not just the physical disability which is the determining factor in assessing whether the claimant (i.e., workman) has incurred total disablement. Thus, if the disablement incurred in an accident incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement, the disablement would be taken as total for the purposes of award of compensation under section 4(1)(b) of the Act regardless of the injury sustained being not one as specified in Part I of Schedule I of the Act. The proviso to clause (l) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not dilute the import of the substantive clause. Rather, it adds to it by specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there is permanent total disablement”.
Advocate Siddhartha Sinha appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
In this case, the Petitioner was employed with Respondent no. 2 as a loading/unloading labourer. The Petitioner was loading pillars on a truck (insured by Respondent no. 1) when the chain pully broke and the poles fell upon the left arm of the Petitioner, thereby causing a compound fracture in her left arm. After that the Petitioner claimed compensation, alleging that she suffered permanent total disablement.
The Petitioner filed a case before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner (Commissioner), as no compensation was granted to her by the Respondents. The Commissioner held that the Petitioner incurred permanent total disability. Respondent no. 1, therefore, approached the High Court challenging the order of the Commissioner. The High Court reduced the compensation amount and reduced the assessment of permanent disability from 100% to 40%.
The Apex Court placed reliance on Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Anr ((1976) 1 SCC 289) as well as Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda v. Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd ((2020) 1 SCC 796), while observing that term “total disablement” under Section 2 (1)(1) of the Act specifies functional disability and not just the physical disability.
Additionally, the Court held that the Petitioner could not perform her tasks with one hand owing to the nature of her employment and no evidence are presented before the Court to rebut the same.
“Prior to the accident, the appellant worked as a loading/unloading labourer. Even if she could use her right hand, the crux is whether she could be considered suitable for performing her task as a loading/unloading labourer. Such a task is ordinarily performed by using both hands. There is no material on record from which it could be inferred that the appellant was skilled to perform any kind of job by use of one hand… In such circumstances, when the Board had certified that the appellant was rendered unfit for labour, there was no perversity in the decision of the Commissioner in awarding compensation by treating the disability as total on account of her functional disability…. In our considered view, the High Court erred in partly setting aside the order of the Commissioner and assessing the disability as 40% instead of 100%, as assessed by the Commissioner.”, the Court noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restored the order of the Commissioner.
Cause Title: Indra Bai v Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 624)
