Workmen Compensation Act | Functional Disability & Not Physical Disability The Determining Factor To Claim Total Disablement : Supreme Court

While enhancing the compensation to an injured labourer under the Workmen Compensation Act 1923, the Supreme Court reiterated that functional disability is the determining factor and not physical disability. The victim was a laborour who lost the grip of her arm due to damages to nerves when a pole fell on her left arm and she lost her grip due. The Madhya Pradesh High Court assessed the disability as 40%. Setting aside the High Court order, the Supreme Court held that it should be considered as "total disablement" as the claimant cannot do the work which she was earlier doing. The Court held that functional disability is the determining factor and not just physical disability to assess whether the claimant has incurred total disablement as per section 2(1) of the Act. "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", observed a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing an appeal against MP HC judgment partly allowing the appeal by Oriental Insurance company against the order of the workmen compensation court. The HC reduced the compensation awarded to the appellant from 3,74,364 to 1,49,745 by treating permanent disability from 100% to 40%.BACKGROUND OF THE CASEThe appellant was employed as a loading/unloading laborer with Simplex Concrete Company. (Respondent 2). While loading poles/pillars on the truck, the poles fell on her left arm causing a compound fracture and damage to her nerves. She suffered permanent total disablement and therefore, she sought compensation from the company. The Company was insured by Oriental Insurance(Respondent 1), so it requested appellant to claim compensation from them.Since no compensation was given, the appellant approached the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923(Act)Before the commissioner, the doctor deposed that a certificate was issued declaring that she suffered 50% permanent disability and was unfit for labour work.The commissioner recorded that appellant was permanently unfit to do labor work which she was doing at the time of the accident. Therefore, there was total disablement. Compensation of 3,74,364 rupees was computed in accordance with section 4(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance company filed an appeal before HC under section 30 of the Act.PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDThe HC referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed to observe that if there is permanent disablement due to injuries not specified in the schedule of the Act, then loss of earning capacity cannot substitute percentage of physical disablement.It also referred to Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir and Another to observe that the extent of disability is to be determined on a factual basis.The HC assessed her disability at 40% and reduced her compensation.Aggrieved by the judgment, an appeal was filed under Art. 136 before the Supreme Court.SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSISThe Supreme Court referred to a 4 judge bench decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata which opined that the real question to be seen is whether due to the disability caused, the person cannot do all the work he was doing at the time of the accident?The bench made a reference to Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda’s case where the doctor had certified that the workman had suffered 37% disability in his whole body, and could not perform the work of a truck driver any longer. In this case, since he could no longer work as a driver which he did earlier, his functional disability was assessed as 100%The court also held that Mubasir Ahmed case was wrongly relied upon by HC since in that case the court had no occasion to examine whether the workman could now perform the work which he was doing at the time of accident?Applying the principles of law to the facts, the court noted that there was a complete loss of grip in her left hand. Now being a labourer who loads/unloads materials, one needs both hands. The court further noted that the appellant was not skilled to do any other work, nor could perform her work using machines.The court held that “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”.Case title: Indra Bai v Oriental Insurance Company LtdCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 543HeadnoteWorkmen Compensation Act, 1923, Section...

Workmen Compensation Act | Functional Disability & Not Physical Disability The Determining Factor To Claim Total Disablement : Supreme Court

Suraj Kumar

Tags