CHANDRAMMA versus MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NCC LIMITED AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 713 · Decided: 09-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
713
   [2022] 17 S.C.R. 713
713
CHANDRAMMA
 v.
MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NCC LIMITED AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 9069 of 2022)
DECEMBER 09, 2022
[KRISHNA MURARI AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – s.2(1)(l) – Total
Disablement – When –Determination of quantum of compensation
– Appellant, a skilled labour was involved in construction work,
fell down from second floor to ground floor when the centering
plate collapsed on her head – Commissioner for Workmen’s
Compensation while holding disability to the whole body at 20%,
assessed compensation at Rs.1,75,000/- – High Court partly allowing
the appeal filed by the appellant enhanced the compensation to
Rs.2,19,512/- – Held: Appellant suffered from disablement of
permanent nature which incapacitated her from doing the work
which she was capable of doing, which is that of a laborer – Thus,
the Commissioner was wrong in holding that the disability of the
appellant will have to be treated as 20% disability as work of the
appellant involves lifting heavy weights and she has been rendered
incapable from doing such work due to her disability – Case of the
appellant is covered by the definition of ‘total disablement’, being
100% disabled – Functional disability of the appellant is liable to
be assessed as 100%, compensation determined accordingly – Total
compensation works out to be Rs.9,26,216/- rounded of to Rs.
9,30,000/- to be paid with interest @ 9% per annum from the date
of making the application till the date of actual payment –
Respondent-Insurance Company to pay the enhanced amount of
compensation as directed.
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – Objective of –
Discussed.
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – s.2(1)(l) – Total
Disablement – Held: Total Disablement is defined u/s. 2(1)(l) to
mean such disablement whether of a temporary or permanent nature
as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of
performing at the time of accident resulting in such disablement
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
714
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
and every injury specified in Part I of Schedule I or combination of
injuries specified in Part II of Schedule I where aggregate
percentage, as specified in Part II against those injuries amounts
to 100% or more – Further, two types of Total Disablement-
Temporary Total Disablement & Permanent Total Disablement,
discussed.
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – s.2(1)(g) – Partial
Disablement – Temporary Partial Disablement & Permanent Partial
Disablement – Distinction between – Held: Distinction between the
two types of partial disablement depends on the fact whether the
disablement results in reduction of earning capacity in the particular
employment in which the employee was engaged at the time of the
accident or in all employment which the employee was capable of
doing – In the former case the partial disablement is called temporary
and in the latter case permanent – Every injury specified in Part Il
of Schedule I of the Employees’ Compensation Act shall be deemed
to result in permanent partial disablement.
Words and Phrases:
“Compensation”, “Just Compensation” – Discussed –
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – ss.3, 4.
“Partial Disablement”, “Total Disablement”– Discussed –
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – ss.2(1)(g), 2(1)(l) .
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The appellant is suffering from permanent
partial disablement which also implies that she will not be able to
do anything manually such as unloading building materials or using
hand tools like shovels or picks or operating other machinery.
Therefore, On the issue of disability, what is relevant is the
statement of the Dr. Mallikarjun who examined the appellant for
making an assessment of the disability. The disability report
showed that there is Permanent Partial Disability of about 58%
of the limb, which corresponds with 26% whole body. There is
no dispute that the appellant suffered from disablement of
permanent nature. The disablement has incapacitated her from
doing the work which she was capable of doing. The said work
was of that of a laborer. Therefore, the Commissioner for
Workmen’s Compensation was wrong in holding that the disability
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
715
of the appellant will have to be treated as 20% disability as the
work of an appellant involves lifting heavy weights and the
appellant has been rendered incapable from doing such work due
to her disability. Hence, the case of the appellant will be covered
by the definition o

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