B. LAKSHMANA ETC. versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ETC.

Citation: [2013] 17 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 01-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 17 S.C.R. 289 
B. LAKSHMANA ·ETC. 
v. 
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE 
COMPANY LIMITED ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11381-11386 of 2013) 
JULY 1, 2013. 
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.) 
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923: 
A 
B 
c 
s.4 - Assessment of loss of earning capacity - By 
qualified, and registered mer:Jical practitioner - High Court 
setting aside order of Workmen's Compensation 
Commissioner on the ground that X"rays of workmen oh' which 
doctor assessed disability were not produced - Held: Under D 
· s.4, it is sufficient if the loss of earning capacity is assessed 
by a qualified and registered medical practitioner - In the 
instant case, there is no dispute with regard to competence 
of the doctor issuing disability certificate - Impugned. order 
of High Court is set aside and orders of Commissioner are 
E 
restored. 
s.30-Appeal- Substantial question of law- Held: Under 
the scheme of the Act, Commissioner is the final authority on 
questions of fact and the first appellate court is the final 
F 
authority on the question of law -
In the instant case, there 
is no question of law much less a substantial question of law 
arising for consideration u/s 30 - High Court erred in 
exercising jurisdiction u/s 30 in the absence of any material 
irregularity or peNersity in the judgment of the Commissioner. 
G 
s. 4-A - Interest- Held: Commissioner only awarded 12% 
which is the statutory interest u/s 4A. 
289 
H 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 17 S.C.R. 
A 
In the instant appeals arising out of the order of the 
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner awarding 
compensation to the workmen, victims of an accident, 
the question for consideration before the Court was: 
whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the 
B 
order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner 
and dismissing the applications of the workmen victims-
appellants for compensation, on the ground that x-rays 
of the workmen-victims based on which the doctor 
c 
assessed the disability should have been produced. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Under s. 4 of the Workmen's 
Compensation Act, 1923, it is sufficient if the loss of 
0 
earning capacity is assessed by a qualified and 
regi~tered medical practitioner. The insurer does not 
have:a case that PW7, who after examining the victims 
and their X-rays, issued the disability certificate, is not a 
qualified medical practitioner. He is a registered medical 
E 
F 
practitioner and he is an orthopedic surgeon. There is 
no dispute with regard to his competence to issue the 
disability certificate. Even otherwise, the Commissioner 
is not an officer qualified and competent to assess the 
disability with reference to the medical records, 
particularly the x-rays. [para 7-8] [294-C-G] 
1.2. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's 
Compensation Commissioner is the final authority on 
questions of fact and the first appellate court is the final 
authority on the question of law. In the instant case, there 
G is no question of law much less a substantial question 
.of law arising for consideration u/s 30 of the Act for the 
High Court. The High Court has simply ventured to re-
appreciate the evidence and record a different finding, 
which is not within its jurisdiction u/s 30 of the Act, in 
H 
B. LAKSHMANA v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW 
291 
INDIA ASSURANCE 
the absence of any material irregularity or perversity. 
A 
[para 12] [295-D-F] 
1.3. The common impugned order of the High ·court 
is set aside and the orders of Workmen's Compensation 
Commissioner are restored. As far as the rate of interest 
is concerned, the Commissioner only awarded 12% 
which is the statutory interest u/s 4A of the Act. [para 13-
14] [295-F-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
11381-11386 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2011 of by the 
High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in M.F.A. 
No. 12360/2007 c/w MFA Nos. 12361/07, 12362/07. 12363/ 
07, 12365/07 (WC). 
Kiran Suri, Nakibur Rahman Barbhuiya, Ritika Gambhir for 
the Appellants. 
J P. N. Shahi, Nee raj Shekhar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
D 
E 
KURIAN, J. 1. Appellants are claimants before the 
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sub Division-I, 
Bellary, Karnataka State. They were working as driver, cleaner 
F 
and load~rs in a lorry bearing registration no. MH-12/AQ-4458. 
On 13.08.2008, the lorry met with an accident when it fell down 
in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.