NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 819 · Decided: 10-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
819
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 819
819
NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.150 of 2021)
FEBRUARY10, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 –Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 – Claim for disability compensation –
Appellant-seaman joined a crew on a foreign going vessel on
18.09.2009 and he was discharged on 18.06.2010 with the
declaration of being permanently unfit for sea service, due to dilated
cardiomyopathy – Seaman claimed that he was entitled to 100%
disability compensation under clause 21 of the National Maritime
Board Agreement –The said claim for disability was rejected by the
Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) as this was not a case of a
seaman becoming incapacitated on account of an accidental injury
suffered on the vessel – The High Court found that the appellant’s
case does not fall in the category of clause 21 since there is no
impediment in his performance of normal day to day affairs–In other
words, the seafaring work may not be feasible but the person is
capable of discharging duty of another job of general nature –
Therefore, the SCI’s rejection order was upheld – On appeal, held:
Under clause 5.9. F(ii), 100% compensation is payable to a seaman
in a situation where a seaman is found medically unfit for sea service,
as a result of injury, while in employment –In the instant case, the
appellant never claimed to have suffered any injury during his ship
duty – Moreover, the impaired heart function cannot reasonably be
attributed to his nine-month engagement –The clause 21 applies to
a case of total disability but this is not a case of 100% disablement
– The dilated cardiomyopathy condition prevents a person from
performing sea service but same will not be an impediment for him
to perform other jobs –As far as appellant’s disability under both
the disability Act 1995 or Act of 2016 is concerned, the dilated
cardiomyopathy condition does not bring his case in either of the
Act – The High Court held that only severance compensation under
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
clause 21 is payable for the seaman and he will not get benefit of
s.47 of the Disability Act 1995 – There is no reason to reach another
conclusion.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Under Clause 5.9.F (ii) of the National Maritime
Board Agreement, 100% compensation is payable to a seaman
in a situation where a seaman is found medically unfit for sea
service, as a result of injury, while in employment. To secure
coverage of Clause 5.9.F (ii), the incapacity must relate to injury
being suffered whilst in employment. In the present case, the
appellant never claimed to have suffered any injury during his
ship duty. Moreover, the impaired heart function cannot
reasonably be attributed to his nine month engagement. In such
circumstances, although the seaman commenced his engagement
with a fitness certificate, it would be unreasonable, in view of this
Court,to relate the medical condition of the appellant having
causal connection with his sea voyage engagement. [Paras 11
and 12][825-E-F; 826-A-B]
2. The Clause 21 applies to a case of total disability but this
is not a case of 100% disablement. To say it another way, the
Dilated Cardiomyopathy condition may prevent the man from
performing sea service but the same will not be an impediment
for him to perform other jobs. With this interpretation,the High
Court held that only severance compensation under Clause 25 is
payable for the seaman. There is no reason to reach another
conclusion on the implication of Clause 21 and Clause 25,for the
appellant. [Para 15][826-G-H; 827-A]
3. As far as appellant’s argument that his heart ailment
should be understood as a disability under the Disability Act and
consequential benefits be accorded to him is concerned, section
2(i) of the Act takes into account visual disability, locomotor
disability, mental illness,mental retardation, hearing impairment
and leprosy. A heart ailment is not covered within the definition
of disabilityin the Act and we would hesitate to import words,
which the legislature 15 chose not to, in their definition of
disability. When the 1995 Act was replaced by the Rights of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
821
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, “a person with disabilities”
was defined under Section 2(s) as a person with long term
physical, menta

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