National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Ranjit Singh & Ors

V.B.GUPTA, J. rb

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI FAO. No.246/2007 & CM No.8787/2007 % Judgment reserved on: 16th November, 2009 Judgment delivered on: 26th November, 2009 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office No.1 Jeevan Bharti 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi And Divisional Office No.3 Jeevan Vikas Building 30-31A, Asaf Ali Road New Delhi …Appellant Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv. Versus 1. Shri Ranjit Singh @ Rana C/o AG-401, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar Delhi. 2. Smt. Harvinder Kaur W/o. Sh. Dalbir Singh B-1/185, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi (Employer) …Respondents Nemo. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. Following substantial question of law has been formulated in this case; "Whether the trial court was authorized to pass order in contravention of Section 4 of the WC Act and ordered the payment of Rs.4,17,508/- instead of 15% which comes to Rs.62,600/- as per the permanent disability?" 2. Before dealing with this question, it would be necessary to mention the brief facts which are as follows; 3. Respondent No.1, was employed as a driver by respondent No.2. On 16th March, 2003, while on duty, respondent No.1 met with an accident and sustained permanent disability to the extent of 15%, as per certificate dated 9th March, 2007 issued by Lok Nayak Hospital. 4. Commissioner Workmen"s Compensation, vide order dated 24th April, 2007 took the disablement for the purpose of compensation as 100% and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,17,508/-. Aggrieved with the decision of the Commissioner, appellant has filed the present appeal. 5. Notice of this appeal was issued to the respondents. Initially counsel for respondents appeared but later on counsel absented. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that the percentage of disability as mentioned in the certificate is 15%, whereas the Commissioner has assessed the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 100%, which is without any basis and reasoning. 7. Other contention is that the finding of the Commissioner is against the explanation Clause(2) Section 4(c) of Workmen"s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short as "Act"). 8. Basic question involved in the present case is as to whether 15% disability for a driver by way of disability certificate issued can be assumed as 100% disability or not. 9. After perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, no irregularity can be found in the impugned order and appeal is not maintainable for the reasons mentioned hereunder. 10. As far as the determination of amount of compensation is concerned, Section 4 of the Act makes provision for the same. Relevant provision of this Section, as applicable in the present case reads as under; Section 4(1)(c)-Where permanent partial disablement result from the injury- (i) in the case of an injury specified in Part II of Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury; and (ii) in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury; Explanation I.-Where more injuries than one are caused by the same accident, the amount of compensation payable under this head shall be aggregated but not so in any case as to exceed the amount which would have been payable if permanent total disablement had resulted from the injuries. Explanation II.-In assessing the loss of earning capacity for the purpose of sub-clause (ii), the qualified medical practitioner shall have due regard to the percentages of loss of earning capacity in relation to d