INDRA BAI versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANOTHER

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 848 · Decided: 17-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
INDRA BAI
v.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANOTHER
(Civil Apeal No. 4492 of 2023)
JULY 17, 2023
[J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 – s.2 and s.4 – Total
disablement – Functional Disability – Appellant-employee was
employed as a loading and unloading labourer with R-2-company
for truck insured with R-1 – While loading poles in a truck, the
appellant suffered a severe injury on the left arm – There was no
grip left in her left hand – Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner
upon consideration of the evidence on record found the appellant
rendered permanently unfit to do labour work, which she was doing
at the time of the accident and awarded total compensation of
Rs.3,74,364/- – However, the High Court assessed her permanent
disability as 40% and thereby reduced the compensation awarded
– On appeal, held: If the disablement incapacitates a workman for
all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the
accident, it would be considered as total disablement for the
purposes of award of compensation – 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 – Judgment of High court set aside – Order of
the Commissioner restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The definition of the term “total disablement”
as provided by clause (l) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the
Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, 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
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 848 : 2023 INSC 624
848
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
849
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. [Para 28][857-E-G]
2. On the basis of medical certificate provided by the Board,
the Commissioner found the appellant unfit for labour inasmuch
as there was complete loss of grip in appellant’s left hand. 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. It is also not a case where the
appellant had the skill to perform her job by using machines which
the appellant could operate by using 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.
Consequently, no question of law, much less a substantial one,
arose for consideration by the High Court so as to allow the appeal
in exercise of power under Section 30 of the Act. 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. [Para 31][858-
D-G]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mubasir Ahmed and
Another (2007) 2 SCC 349 : [2007] 2 SCR 117 – held
inapplicable.
Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata Another
(1976) 1 SCC 289 : [1976] 2 SCR 872; Chanappa
Nagappa Muchalagoda v. Divisional Manager, New
India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 1 SCC 796 : [2019]
14 SCR 556 – relied on.
INDRA BAI v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. &
ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd v. Mohd. Nasir and
Another (2009) 6 SCC 280 : [2009] 8 SCR 829; Golla
Rajanna and Other v. Divisional

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