LexKAMAL DEV PRASAD versus MAHESH FORGE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2053 : 2025 INSC 591 Kamal Dev Prasad v. Mahesh Forge (Civil Appeal No. 5667 of 2025) 29 April 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in reducing the percentage of disability as per the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 while determining the compensation. Headnotes† Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 – Schedule to the Act – Functional disability – Reduction of – When not proper – Determination of compensation – Appellant, a forging machine operator met with an accident while operating the machine losing one or more phalanges of four fingers of his right hand – Commissioner allowed 100% disability and determined the compensation – In appeal, High Court while determining the compensation reduced the disability to 34% – Interference with: Held: There can be a departure from the Schedule in deciding the functional disability – There is no loss assessment for amputation of two and a half phalanges of the index finger as per the schedule, which in any event has to be taken as a whole loss for which the disability is 14% – Hence, in any event the disability even as determined by the Schedule to the Act would be 37% aggregating the total loss – Further, the disability as determined by the statute is for the specific loss of a phalanx or a finger and in the event of more than one such loss it cannot be said that a mere aggregation would determine the actual loss – Appellant’s working hand was seriously mutilated by the loss of one or more phalanges of four fingers – The middle and index finger having been disabled completely and the ring finger and the little finger having lost two phalanges and one phalanx respectively, functionally it is difficult for the right hand to be used with the same grip as available prior to the accident – Though a 100% disability cannot be assessed, insofar as the mutilation of the one hand which is also the operational hand, the right hand, the loss is determined at 50% – Compensation determined. [Paras 7, 8, 10, 11] * Author 2054 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Nasir [2009] 8 SCR 829 : (2009) 6 SCC 280 – referred to. List of Acts Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. List of Keywords Functional disability; Reduction of functional disability; Forging machine operator; Accident; Forging machine; Right hand; Operational hand; Lost phalanx of little finger, Lost phalanges of fingers; Middle and index finger; Ring finger and the little finger; Amputation; 100% disability. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5667 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in FA No. 1781 of 2008 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Ms. Vidya Vijaysinh Pawar. Advs. for the Respondent: Amol Chitale, Sarthak Sharma, Mrs. Pragya Baghel. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment K. Vinod Chandran, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appeal is filed against the reduction of the disability as per the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (as it is presently named). The Commissioner under the Act allowed 100% disability and adopted the factor of 213.57 thus determining the total compensation to be ₹ 3,20,355/-. The Commissioner also awarded 12% interest from the date of accident and 50% penalty i.e. ₹ 1,60,178/- for reason of [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2055 Kamal Dev Prasad v. Mahesh Forge the employer having not paid the compensation within one month from the accident. The employer filed an appeal, the order in which is impugned herein by the employee. 3. The only contention taken is that Part II of Schedule I of the Act lists out the injuries and the percentage of loss of earning capacity is statutorily determined. The appellant is entitled to only 34% was the contention of the employer which was accepted by the High Court. 4. We heard learned counsel, Ms. Vidya Vijaysinh Pawar appearing for the appellant employee and learned counsel, Mr. Amol Chitale appearing for the respondent employer. 5. The appellant was an employee from 05.04.2002 and at the relevant time was engaged to operate a forging machine. The employee was also paid a salary of ₹ 2,500/- p.m. as recorded in the registers maintained by the employer. On 06.11.2004, late in the night, while operating the machine, a part of the machine fell on his hand and while he
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.