Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 339 (GAU)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Gafur

2002-08-12

N.SURJAMANI SINGH

body2002
N.S. SINGH, J.— Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Brahma for the appellant. Heard also Mr. B.P. Katakey learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.K. Misra for the respondents. 2. The impugned judgment and award dated 15th July, 1997 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nagaon Assam in case No. W.C. 77/97 is the subject matter under challenge in this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the 'Act, 1923'). 3. The facts of the case in a short campus are as follows:- The respondent-claimant is a driver who was working under one Sri Tilok Deka, the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-02/ 6785 (609) Bus. On 4th July, 1996 while he was driving the said vehicle as per instruction of the owner of the vehicle from Nagaon towards Tezpur, he met with an accident at Oriagaon, while another vehicle (truck) came from the opposite direction with high speed and knocked down the aforesaid vehicle and as a result of which the claimant got grievous injuries on his person and he was taken to Nagaon Civil Hospital in unconscious condition, and subsequently he had been referred to Gauhati Medical College Hospital, Neurological department for treatment, and he is still under medical treatment and supervision. 4. A case was registered by the Police in connection with the said accident, and on the basis of a claim petition filed by him before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Nagaon, the said Commissioner awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,49,745:60 with interest at the rate of 12% amounting to Rs. 13,960.14 i.e. total Rs. 1,63,705.74. Being dis-satisfied with the impugned Judgment and award dated 15th July, 1997 the appellant-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. preferred this appeal. 5. At the very outset Mr. B.C. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner, Workmen's, Compensation, Nagaon is not the authority expertise to assess the loss of earning capacity of a workman and it is for the medical expert or the competent authority to make assessment of loss of earning capacity of a workman, and loss of earning capacity is to be judged on the basis of sound medical principle. Supporting his submission, Mr. Das has drawn my attention to the decision rendered in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjit Kumar & Another, reported in 2000 (2) GLT 567. Supporting his submission, Mr. Das has drawn my attention to the decision rendered in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjit Kumar & Another, reported in 2000 (2) GLT 567. According to Mr. Das, the learned Commissioner has wrongly assessed the loss of earning capacity of the claimant while awarding compensation which is exorbitant and inappropriate. Learned counsel further contended that such assessment for loss of earning capacity is to be judged by a medical authority and not by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. 6. According to me, the decision of this Court rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjit Kumar & Anr. (supra) does not support the case of the appellant, inasmuch, as in that case, medical report was silent about the percentage of loss of earning capacity of the claimant-petitioner due to physical injuries sustained by him, but in the case in hand, there is a medical report which was also not controverted or denied by the appellant-Insurance Company, and that medical report speaks about the disablement and permanent disablement which has been estimated at around 60%. In other words, the claimant has become permanently disabled and the same has been estimated at around 60% and on the basis of which the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has assessed the loss of earning capacity of the claimant and under the law, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is empowered and had the jurisdiction to determine the compensation on the basis of available medical report. The learned Commissioner decided the percentage of loss of earning capacity of the claimant at the rate of 60% on the available medical report, and, as such there was no infirmity in doing so. The appellant has duly admitted the supporting medical documents, and the certificate of disablement issued by the Doctor concerned. In other wards, loss of earning capacity of the claimant at the rate of 60% is valid in the eye of law, and, accordingly, the Commissioner has rightly assessed the compensation and awarded the compensation money under the impugned judgment and award. 7. This Court need not go more into the depth as suffice is made with the above observations to dismiss the appeal, and, accordingly it is dismissed. 8. Mr. B.P. Katakey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant submitted that the respondent-claimant had already withdrawn the compensation money by furnishing necessary bond. 7. This Court need not go more into the depth as suffice is made with the above observations to dismiss the appeal, and, accordingly it is dismissed. 8. Mr. B.P. Katakey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant submitted that the respondent-claimant had already withdrawn the compensation money by furnishing necessary bond. Be that as it may, the submission of Mr. Katakey is hereby noted. 9. No costs.