Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 726 (GAU)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bimal Nath

2008-09-24

BROJENDRA PRASAD KATAKEY

body2008
JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. These appeals under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act') by the Insurance Company are directed against the orders passed, by the learned Commissioner, WC, Guwahati awarding compensation to the workmen-Respondents-under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, for the personal injuries caused to them by an accident arising out of and in course of their employment. 2. All these three appeals were admitted for hearing vide order dated 5.1.2007 on the identical substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the injuries sustained by the claimant not being one as specified in Schedule 1 Part-II of the Act and there being no evidence and finding at all to show that the alleged disablement of the claimant reduces his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time of accident, the learned Commissioner was justified in granting compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(1)(c) of the Act? (ii) Whether the medical practitioner having assessed the loss of earning capacity of the claimant at 30% without due regard to the percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to the injuries specified in Schedule 1 of the Act, the learned Commissioner was justified in acting upon the said purported assessment arid granting compensation under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act? 3. As all the three appeals involve the identical substantial questions of law, they are taken up for hearing and disposal together, as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of the present appeals may be noticed as under: (A) MFA No. 2/2007. (I) The Respondent Bimal Nath, who was the driver of the vehicle No. AS-01/P-3237 (Maruti Van) belonging to Sri Kamdev Das (opposite party No. 1 before the learned Commissioner, WC), filed an application seeking compensation under the provisions of the Act, which was registered as WC Case No. 32/05, against the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company (Appellant herein) contending, inter alia, that on 25.11.2004 while he was driving the said vehicle from Pathsala towards Bhabanipur, a truck collided with the said vehicle and as a result of which, he sustained injuries in the right elbow joint, legs as well as on other parts of his body, which in turn, incapacitated him from driving the motor vehicle. It has further been contended in the said application that he was 22 years old at the time of accident and was drawing Rs. 4,000 as wages. The owner of the vehicle upon receipt of the notice entered appearance and filed the written statement admitting the employment of the workman, the accident arising out of and in course of his employment, the injuries sustained by him and also his monthly wages. The owner of the vehicle has further contended that since a valid policy of insurance has been issued by the Appellant, the award, if any, has to be satisfied by it. The Appellant herein, who has been impleaded as opposite party No. 2, in the written statement denied all the averments made by the workman in the claim application, including the nature and extent of injuries alleged to have been suffered by him. (II) Questioning the nature of injuries stated to have been suffered by the workman, an application was filed by the Insurance Company praying for directing the claimant to submit himself for examination by a qualified medical practitioner, which was though allowed by the learned, Commissioner and the workman was willing to get himself examined again, the Appellant Insurance Company did not comply with the direction contained in the order dated 21.3.2006 passed by the learned Commissioner and hence, the workman was not medically examined afresh by a Govt. doctor. (III) The workman in support of the claim examined two witnesses, namely himself as well as the doctor and exhibited a number of documents including the certificate issued by the doctor relating to the injuries and his loss of earning capacity. Neither the owner nor the Insurance Company adduced any evidence. The Insurance Company, however, cross-examined the witnesses examined by the workman. The learned Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidences oh record passed the order dated 11.9.2006 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,59,386 as compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act assessing his loss of earning capacity at 30% and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days, there being no dispute relating to the contract of insurance between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. (B) MFA No. 3/2007. 1,59,386 as compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act assessing his loss of earning capacity at 30% and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of compensation within 30 days, there being no dispute relating to the contract of insurance between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. (B) MFA No. 3/2007. (I) The Respondent workman, Gokul Pathak filed the application seeking compensation under the provisions of the, Act, which has been registered as WC Case No. 33/05, against the owner as well as the Insurance Company contending inter alia that while he was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-45/3276(TATA SUMO) belonging to the opposite party No. 1 before the learned Commissioner, on 10.5.2004, from Guwabati to Barpeta, the vehicle met with an accident at Kakertal Bantunbari and as a result of which he sustained injuries on his right fore arm and on the forehead, which incapacitated him from driving the motor vehicle. It has further been contended that he was aged about 22 years and was paid monthly wages of Rs. 4,000. The owner of the vehicle in the said proceeding before the learned Tribunal also entered appearance and filed the written statement admitting the factum of accident as well as the injuries suffered by the workman arising out of and in course of his employment and also his age and the monthly wages. The Insurance Company has filed almost identical written statement as has been filed in WC No. 32/05, denying everything including the nature of injuries suffered. (II) In the said proceeding also, though the prayer of the Insurance Company to get the workman examined by a doctor afresh was allowed by the learned Commissioner and the workman submitted himself for medical examination, the Insurance Company did not comply with such direction, for which he could not be medically examined afresh. The workman in the said proceeding also examined himself as well as the doctor in support of the claim and exhibited a number of documents including the certificate of disability reflecting the nature of injuries sustained as well as loss of earning capacity. The learned Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidences on record awarded a sum of Rs. The workman in the said proceeding also examined himself as well as the doctor in support of the claim and exhibited a number of documents including the certificate of disability reflecting the nature of injuries sustained as well as loss of earning capacity. The learned Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidences on record awarded a sum of Rs. 1,49,745 under Section 4(1)(c)(ii)with interest, by holding that he has suffered 30% loss of earning capacity for the injuries sustained by him and directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award, in view of the contract of insurance between the owner and the Insurance Company. The learned Commissioner further directed, that in the event the said amount is not deposited within 30 days, the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit. (C) MFA No. 4/2007. (I) Sri Bhadreswar Kalita, the Respondent-workman, filed the application praying for awarding compensation under the provisions of the Act, which has been registered as WC Case No. 34/05, before the learned Commissioner, WC at Guwahati against Sri Paresh Gayari and the present Appellant Insurance Company, being the owner and the insurer of the vehicle respectively, contending, inter alia that on 7.11.2004 while he was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-15/6464(Bus) belong to Sri Paresh Gayari from Barpeta towards Dhubri, the said vehicle met with an accident at Ararghar under Chapor P.S. when a truck dashed against the said Bus, as a result of which he sustained injury on his right leg and the right hand and became incapacitated to drive the motor vehicle as he lost the strength on his right hand. The workman in the application claimed his age to be of 35 years at the relevant point of time and the monthly wages as Rs. 4,000. In the said proceeding also, the owner of the vehicle entered appearance and filed the written statement admitting the factum of employment, accident arising out of and in course of the employment, age, monthly wages as well as the nature of injuries sustained by the workman and further contending that the vehicle in question has been insured by the Appellant Insurance Company and, therefore, any amount of compensation payable has to be paid by the said Insurance Company under the contract of insurance. Like in the other proceedings, being WC Case Nos. Like in the other proceedings, being WC Case Nos. 32 and 33 of 2005, the Insurance Company in the written statement denied all the averments made by the claimant in the claim application including the nature of injuries sustained. (II) In the said proceeding also, though the prayer for fresh medical examination was allowed by the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the application filed by the Appellant Insurance Company, the claimant was not medically examined afresh in spite of his submission for such examination, because of the failure of the Insurance Company to comply with such direction issued by the learned Commissioner. The claimant in the said proceeding also, examined, himself as well as the doctor and exhibited a number of documents including the injury report and also the certificate of loss of earning capacity as assessed by, the doctor. The learned Tribunal upon appreciation of the, evidences on record awarded a sum of Rs. 1,40,700 as compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) by assessing the loss of earning capacity of the claimant, because of the injuries sustained by him, at 35% and directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award within 30 days, in view of the undisputed contract of insurance, with a further direction that in default, the said amount shall carry interest @, 9% per annum from the date of accident till the date of deposit. 5. I have heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior Counsel for the Appellants as well as Ms. S. Senapati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants-Respondents. 6. Referring to the orders passed by the learned Commissioner, WC, assessing the amount of compensation payable as well as, the evidences adduced by the workmen including the evidence of the doctors, Mr. Das, learned senior Counsel has submitted that the learned Commissioner passed the orders directing payment of compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) without first ascertaining as to whether the injuries suffered by the workmen result in permanent partial disablement. According to Mr. Das, learned senior Counsel has submitted that the learned Commissioner passed the orders directing payment of compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) without first ascertaining as to whether the injuries suffered by the workmen result in permanent partial disablement. According to Mr. Das, even in case of permanent partial disablement the loss of earning capacity of the workman concerned for the purpose of Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4of the Act has to be assessed by the qualified medical practitioner with due regard to the percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to different injuries specified in Schedule I and when such an assessment has been made by the qualified medical practitioner without having due regard to the percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to different injuries specified in Schedule I, the learned Commissioner cannot accept the loss of earning capacity as assessed by such medical practitioner, for the purpose of awarding compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. Referring to Section 2(1)(g) of the Act, which defines "partial disablement", it has been submitted by Mr. Das that such partial disablement may be of temporary or of a permanent nature, depending, on, as to whether such disablement has reduced the earning capacity of a workman in any employment in which he was engaged or in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time of accident. Mr. Das, learned senior Counsel submits that if the earning capacity in the employment, in which he was engaged, has been reduced because of the disablement, it would be temporary partial disablement and in that case, such workman would be entitled to the compensation not under Section 4(1)(c)(ii), but under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act. According to Mr. Das, the provisions of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) would be applicable when the concerned workman could, prove that the disablement which he has suffered has reduced his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time of accident, meaning thereby not the employment which he performed at the time of accident, but in any other employment which he was capable of undertaking. 7. In the instant cases, according to Mr. 7. In the instant cases, according to Mr. Das, it is in the evidence of the workmen as well as the doctors, who were examined as workmen's witnesses that their disablement is not of a permanent nature and therefore does not amount to permanent partial disablement, but is partial temporary disablement, as the doctors in their evidence have clearly stated that after the check up they did not advise the workmen for any further treatment, meaning thereby that they recovered from the injuries. It has further been submitted that neither the workmen nor the doctors have stated in their evidence that the injuries suffered by them resulted in such a disablement which has incapacitated them from pursuing any employment which they were capable of undertaking at the time of accident. Mr. Das, therefore, submits that in these cases the compensations are to be assessed under Section4(1)(d) of the Act and the Workmen would be entitled to the half monthly payment of the sum equivalent to 25% of the monthly wages, which is to be paid in accordance with the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) thereto for a maximum period of 5 years. 8. Mr. Das, in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decisions of the Allahabad High Court, in Anandi Lal and Ors. v. Ram Sarup and Ors. AIR 1936 All. 493; of Bombay High Court in Ahmed Abdul v. H.K. Sehgal, AIR 1965 Bom. 32 ; of Punjab High Court in Bhagat Singh Ram Saran v. Punjab State through Officer-in-Charge, Bhakra Nangal Dam, Hoshiarpur, AIR 1966 P&H 397 ; of Calcutta High Court in Calcutta Licensed Measurers Bengal Chamber of Commerce v. Md. Hossain AIR 1969 Cat. 378 and in Ram Naresh Singh v. Lodhna Colliery Co. Ltd. 1973 Lab. I.C. 1656; of Karnataka High Court in The Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. v. B.T. Krishnamurthy 1997 Lab. I.C. 1838; in Shivalinga Shivanagowda Patil v. Erappa Basuppa Bhavihala and etc. 2004 Lab. IC 286; of Orissa High Court in C. David v. Gobind Chandra Mishra and Anr. 1997 Lab. IC 1864; and of Kerala High Court in Venajakshan (Died) Raveendra Sadanam v. M.D. Joseph Muringa Poratha House 2004 Lab. IC 339. 9. Ms. I.C. 1838; in Shivalinga Shivanagowda Patil v. Erappa Basuppa Bhavihala and etc. 2004 Lab. IC 286; of Orissa High Court in C. David v. Gobind Chandra Mishra and Anr. 1997 Lab. IC 1864; and of Kerala High Court in Venajakshan (Died) Raveendra Sadanam v. M.D. Joseph Muringa Poratha House 2004 Lab. IC 339. 9. Ms. Senapati, learned Counsel for the Respondents-workmen, supporting the orders of compensation passed by the learned Commissioner has submitted that it is being in evidence that the workmen have suffered disablement which reduced their earning capacity as driver, the learned Commissioner has rightly passed the order under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act as, such injuries amount to permanent partial disablement. According Ms. Senapati, the words "every employment" occurring in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act, so as to constitute the disablement of permanent nature, does not mean that the workman with a view to get the compensation assessed under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act has to be incapacitated in any employment other than the employment which he pursued at the time of accident, which in the instant case, as the driver. It has further been submitted that the Appellant Insurance Company has in fact waived their right, if any, of questioning the nature of injuries sustained by the workmen and its permanent nature, as it has failed to comply with the direction contained in the orders passed by the learned Commissioner, on the basis of the application filed by it, for examination of the workmen by another doctor, afresh. Ms. Senapati, in support of her contention, has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Anr., (1976) 1 SCC 289 ; of Andhra Pradesh High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Saleem Khan and Ors., 1993 ACJ 181; and Lingampalli Rajam (deceased) through LRs v. Colliery Manager, Morgan's Pit Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. 2001 ACJ 350 ; of Orrissa High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudarsan Samal and Anr. 1995 Lab. I.C. 1672; of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dhiyan Singh v. Gulzar Ahmed and Anr., 2006 ACJ 1513 ; and of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Puran Dutt v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation 2007 (2) TAC 867. 10. Controverting the arguments of Ms. Ltd. v. Sudarsan Samal and Anr. 1995 Lab. I.C. 1672; of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dhiyan Singh v. Gulzar Ahmed and Anr., 2006 ACJ 1513 ; and of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Puran Dutt v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation 2007 (2) TAC 867. 10. Controverting the arguments of Ms. Senapati relating to the waiver of the right to question the nature of injuries sustained by the claimants, Mr. Das, learned senior Counsel has submitted that non-compliance of the direction issued by the learned Commissioner by the Insurance Company relating to the examination of the workmen afresh, would not amount to waiver of the right by the Insurance Company to challenge the order of compensation, though, for such non-compliance, the Insurance Company may not be entitled to question the nature of injuries stated to have sustained by them as claimed, but it would not debar the Insurance Company from demonstrating that even if the workmen have suffered such injuries, the same do not constitute permanent partial disablement within the meaning of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, but temporary, partial disablement within the meaning of Section 4(1)(d) of the Act. 11. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings as well as the materials available on record of the WC cases, including the orders passed by the learned Commissioner awarding compensation. 12. In the instant case, the Insurance Company has not challenged the factum of employment, age, wages of the claimants and also the factum of the accident arising out of and in course of employment, involving the vehicles in question. The Insurance Company, as noticed above, having filed the application seeking a direction of the learned Commissioner for medical examination of the concerned, workmen and having failed to comply with the direction issued by the learned Commissioner while allowing such prayer, cannot now challenge the injuries sustained by them. This would, however, not preclude the Insurance Company to demonstrate that such injuries suffered by the workmen do not result in permanent partial disablement so as to award compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act and it amounts to temporary disablement, whether total or partial, within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) and are entitled to compensation under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act. 13. 13. Section 2(1)(g) defines 'partial disablement' as under: (g) "partial disablement" means, where the disablement is of a temporary nature, such disablement as reduces the earning capacity of a workman in any employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident resulting in the disablement, and, where the disablement is of a permanent nature, such disablement as reduces his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at that time : provided that every injury specified in Part II of Schedule I shall be deemed to result in permanent partial disablement. 14. Section 4 of the Act stipulates the amount of compensation payable to the workman on the death or personal injuries caused to him in an accident arising out of and in course of his employment. Section 4(1)(c) deals with the amount of compensation payable where the workman suffers from permanent partial disablement results from the injury. Sub-clause (i) provides that in case of an injury specified in Part-II of Schedule I, the workman would be entitled to such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in case of permanent total disablement as specified therein as being the percentage of loss of earning capacity caused by that injury. In the instant case, admittedly the injuries suffered by the workmen, are neither specified in Part-I nor in Part-II of the Schedule I. The provision under which the compensation has been awarded by the learned Commissioner in the 'instant case is under Section 4(1)(c)(ii). For better appreciation, Section 4(1)(c)(i) & (ii) is reproduced below: 4. In the instant case, admittedly the injuries suffered by the workmen, are neither specified in Part-I nor in Part-II of the Schedule I. The provision under which the compensation has been awarded by the learned Commissioner in the 'instant case is under Section 4(1)(c)(ii). For better appreciation, Section 4(1)(c)(i) & (ii) is reproduced below: 4. Amount of compensation.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely- (a) Where death results from the injury (b) Where permanent total disablement results from the injury (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 different injuries specified in Schedule I. 15. Section 4(1)(c)(ii) with the explanations appended thereto, therefore, makes it clear that the workman is entitled to compensation under the said provision of law provided he suffers from permanent partial disablement resulted from the injuries suffered by him and such compensation would be such percentage of the compensation payable in 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. The qualified medical practitioner while assessing the loss of earning capacity for the purpose of Sub-clause (ii) is also required to have due regard to the percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to different injuries specified in Schedule I. That means before assessing the loss of earning capacity on the basis of the injury suffered by a workman, the medical practitioner has to keep in mind the percentage of loss of earning capacity as specified, in respect of the injuries mentioned, in Schedule I to the Act, which enlisted the percentage of loss of earning capacity in respect of different injuries ranging from 1% to 90%. The assessment to be made by the qualified medical practitioner for the purpose of Sub-clause (ii) of Section 4(1)(c)cannot, therefore, be a mechanical assessment, without regard being had to the percentage of loss of earning capacity, in respect, of the Schedule I injuries. 16. Clause (d) of Section 4(1) of the Act provides that in case of temporary disablement, whether total or partial, the workman shall be entitled to the half monthly payment of the sum equivalent, to 25% of hip monthly wages, to be paid in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2). For better appreciation, Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) as well as Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section4 of the Act are quoted below: Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4: (d) Where temporary disablement whether total or partial results from the injury, a half monthly payment of the sum equivalent to twenty-five per cent of monthly wages of the workman, to be paid in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2). Sub-section (2), (3) & (4) of Section 4. (2) The half-monthly payment referred to in Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) shall be payable on the sixteenth day- (i) from the date of disablement where such disablement lasts for a period of twenty-eight days or more, or (ii) After the expiry of a waiting period of three days from the date of. (2) The half-monthly payment referred to in Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) shall be payable on the sixteenth day- (i) from the date of disablement where such disablement lasts for a period of twenty-eight days or more, or (ii) After the expiry of a waiting period of three days from the date of. disablement where such disablement lasts for a period, of less than twenty-eight days; and thereafter half-monthly during the disablement or during a period of five years, whichever period is shorter: Provided that- (a) there shall be deducted from any lump sum or half-monthly payments to which the workman is entitled the amount of any payment or allowance which the workman has received from the employer by way of compensation during the period of disablement prior to the receipt of such lump sum or of the first half-monthly payment, as the case may be; and (b) no half-monthly payment shall in any case exceed the amount, if any by which half the amount of the monthly wages of the workman before the accident exceeds half the amount of such wages which he is earning after the accident. Explanation: Any, payment or allowances which the workman has received from the employer towards his medical treatment shall not be deemed to be a payment or allowance received by him by way of compensation within the meaning of Clause (a) of the proviso. (3) On the ceasing of the disablement before the date on which any half-monthly payment falls due there shall be payable in respect of that half-month a sum proportionate to the duration of the disablement in that half-month. (4) If the injury of the workman results in his death, the employer shall, in addition to the compensation under Sub-section (1), deposit with the Commissioner a sum of two thousand and five hundred rupees for payment of the same to the eldest surviving dependant of the workman or where the workman did not have a dependant or was not living with his dependant at the time of his death to the person who actually incurred such expenditure. 17. The question, which requires determination by this Court is, therefore, whether to constitute the permanent partial disablement within the meaning of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) the, workman must suffer such disablement which reduces his earning capacity in every employment, which he was capable of undertaking at the time of accident. 17. The question, which requires determination by this Court is, therefore, whether to constitute the permanent partial disablement within the meaning of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) the, workman must suffer such disablement which reduces his earning capacity in every employment, which he was capable of undertaking at the time of accident. In other words "every employment" occurring in Section 2(1)(g)of the Act, so as to constitute the permanent partial disablement, whether means any employment which the workman was capable of undertaking at the time of accident, apart from the employment in which he was engaged at that point of time. 18. As noticed above, the "partial disablement" includes the disablement of temporary as well as of permanent; nature, as defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. From the definition of 'partial disablement' in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act, it is clear that to constitute the 'temporary partial disablement', it must be of temporary nature and reduces the earning capacity of a workman in any employment in which he was engaged at the time of accident. 19. The word 'any', according to the Webster's Encyclopedia Unbridged Dictionary of the English Language, means 'one', 'a', 'an' or, 'some', one or more without specification or identification....'every', 'all'. Therefore, the word 'any' has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate 'all' or 'every' as well as 'some' or 'one' and its meaning in a given Statute depends upon the context in which it is used and the subject-matter of the Statute. It is often synonymous with 'either', 'every' or 'all'. Its generality may be restricted by context. Hence, the words 'any employment' occurring in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act, whether it means the employment in which the concerned workman was engaged at the time of accident or any other employment, depends on the context in which the word 'any' is used in that section. 20. It is a well settled principle of interpretation of Statute that the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous. The Statute being an edict of the Legislature, the language employed in a Statute is a determinative factor of legislative intent, as the object of interpreting a Statute is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature enacting it. The Statute being an edict of the Legislature, the language employed in a Statute is a determinative factor of legislative intent, as the object of interpreting a Statute is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature enacting it. Such intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that while gathering such intention of the Legislature, much attention is required to be paid to what has been said, as also to what has not been said. The rules of interpretation do not permit courts to read words into an Act, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so or unless the provision as it stands is meaningless or of doubtful meaning. Courts are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself Maulavi Hussain Haji Abraham Umarji v. State of Gujarat and Anr., (2004) 6 SCC 672 . 21. From the language used in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act and in the context the word 'any' used therein indicates that the Legislature has meant "any employment" as the employment in which the workman concerned was engaged at the time of accident resulting in the disablement, that means the employment specific which the workman had performed. A disablement could be said to be temporary partial disablement, if such disablement is of temporary nature and has reduced the earning capacity of the workman in the employment in which he was engaged at the time of accident, resulting in the disablement and in the instant cases, as drivers. 22. It would appear from the definition of 'partial disablement' in Section 2(1)(g), of the Act that to constitute 'permanent partial disablement', arising out of an injury not specified in Part-II of Schedule I of the Act, it must be such disablement of a permanent nature which reduces the earning capacity of the workman in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time of accident resulting in the disablement. The Legislature has used different languages' while defining the 'temporary partial disablement' and 'permanent partial disablement'. The Legislature has used different languages' while defining the 'temporary partial disablement' and 'permanent partial disablement'. To constitute the 'permanent partial disablement', arising out of non-scheduled injury, it must be proved by the workman concerned that the disablement resulting from the injuries has incapacitated him in performing any other employment which he was capable of undertaking, apart from the employment in which he was engaged at the time of accident. It, however, does not mean all sorts of employment but' means such employment, which the workman is capable of undertaking at the time of accident, depending on the nature of skill possessed by the workman and the skill required for the purpose of such employment. To assess the amount of compensation payable to a workman and in calculating the loss of earning capacity, within the meaning of the Act, the possibility of the workman discharging a different type of job must be borne in mind. However, every injury specified in Part-II of Schedule I shall be deemed to result in 'permanent partial disablement'. 23. It would appear from the definition of "total disablement" in Section 2(1)(h) of the Act that it means a disablement, whether of temporary or permanent nature, which incapacitates a workman for all work, which he was capable of performing at the time of accident. However, the 'permanent total disablement' shall be deemed to have been resulted from the injuries specified in Part-I of Schedule I or from any combination of the injuries specified in Part-II thereof where the aggregate percentage of loss of earning capacity, as specified in Part-II against those injuries, amounts to 100% or more. To constitute 'temporary total disablement', the disablement must be for a temporary period and incapacitates the workman from performing all work which he was capable of at the time of accident. Similarly, to constitute 'permanent total disablement', it must be of permanent nature and incapacitates the workman from doing all work which he was capable of doing at the time of accident, however, with the exception as provided in the proviso to Section 2(1)(h) of the Act. The language used by the Legislature in defining 'temporary partial disablement', 'permanent partial disablement' and, 'total disablement', are different. 24. The language used by the Legislature in defining 'temporary partial disablement', 'permanent partial disablement' and, 'total disablement', are different. 24. From the aforesaid discussions, it is, therefore, clear that while assessing the compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) what the learned Commissioner, is required to find out is - whether such disablement is of a permanent nature which reduces the earning capacity of the workman in every employment which he was capable of undertaking, and not merely the particular employment in which he was engaged at the time of accident. For instance, if a Driver claims compensation contending that he suffers disablement of permanent nature, because of the injuries sustained by him, on his hands or legs, what is to be seen by the Commissioner is whether such disablement reduces his earning capacity as Driver or reduces his earning capacity in any other employment which he was capable of undertaking, depending on his skill. The burden of proving the disability and the reduction of earning capacity is obviously on the workman who claims the benefit of the Act. If the Commissioner finds that though the workman's earning capacity has been reduced in the employment in which he was engaged at the time of accident but has not been reduced in respect of other employment, which he was capable of undertaking at the time of accident, depending on the skill, the compensation cannot be assessed under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. In that event, the compensation has to be assessed under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act. The workman, however, by adducing acceptable evidence, can establish that because of the injury his earning capacity has not only been reduced in respect of the work which he was performing before the accident but also in respect of any other employment, depending on his skill and also the skill required for other works, which he was capable of undertaking at that time, in which event it would amount to 'permanent partial disablement', provided the disablement is of a permanent nature. 25. In Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), on the basis of the fact that the workman, who was carpenter suffers from injuries resulting in the amputation of his left arm from the elbow, the Commissioner, WC held, that such injury renders him unfit for the work of carpenter and accordingly adjudged him to have lost 100% of his earning capacity. 25. In Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), on the basis of the fact that the workman, who was carpenter suffers from injuries resulting in the amputation of his left arm from the elbow, the Commissioner, WC held, that such injury renders him unfit for the work of carpenter and accordingly adjudged him to have lost 100% of his earning capacity. The said decision was challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground, inter alia, that the computation being from 8" from tip of acromion and less than 4 1/2" below tip of olecranon it was a case of partial disablement within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act and should have been deemed to have resulted in permanent partial disablement of the nature referred in item 3 of Part-II of Schedule I of the Act. The Apex Court while rejecting such contention and taking into account the definition of 'total disablement' under Section2(1)(h) of the Act, has, in para-5 of the said report, observed as under: 5....It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as to cause permanent disablement to the Respondent and true question for consideration is whether the disablement incapacitated the Respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his finding as follows: The injured workman in this case is carpenter by profession.... By loss of the left hand above the elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only. This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. Counsel for the Appellant has not been able to assail to on any ground, and it does not require to be corrected in this appeal. There is also no justification for the other argument which has been advanced with reference to Item 3 of Part-II of Schedule I, because it was not the Appellant's case before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm was from 8" from tip of acromion to less than 4 1/2" below the tip of olecranon. Anew case cannot therefore be allowed to be setup on facts which have not been admitted or established. Anew case cannot therefore be allowed to be setup on facts which have not been admitted or established. The injury, which the workman has suffered in Pratap Narain Singh Deo case was a schedule injury under Part-I of Schedule I of the Act and, therefore, came within the meaning of "total disablement", as defined in Section 2(1)(h) of the Act. The same was not an injury coming under Section 4(1)(c)(ii), read with Explanation-II of the Act. 26. In Amar Nath Singh v. Continental Constructions Ltd., New Delhi 2001 1 TAC 446, the Apex Court while referring to its decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), has observed that the decision turned on its own facts and, therefore, the principles therein cannot be extended to the said case. Relying on the decision in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), Pasupuleti Ramarao (supra) and in Lingampalli Rajan (supra), while considering the definition of 'total enablement' under Section 2(1)(h) has observed that the workman concerned in those cases have suffered loss of earning capacity at 100% keeping in view the facts involved in those cases. Similarly, the Orissa High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), keeping in view the facts involved in that case, has opined that there can be little scope for doubt that the insured workman has suffered total disablement for undertaking the work of a Driver which he was discharging at the time of the accident, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra). The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dhiyan Singh (supra), keeping in view the fact that there was amputation of right arm of a driver above elbow and placing reliance on the Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), has held that the workman is entitled to compensation at 100% disablement. The Himachal Pradesh High Court also in Puran Dutt (supra), has taken the same view by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra). 27. The Himachal Pradesh High Court also in Puran Dutt (supra), has taken the same view by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra). 27. For the reasons recorded above, with all respect, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Orissa High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court and Himachal Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid decisions, as those, in my considered view, are not the authority for the proposition that the compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act in respect of non-schedule, injury has to be determined only with reference to the work that was being done by the workman and not the loss in the earning capacity in every employment which the workman was capable of undertaking at the time of the accident. Those decisions, in my view, have been rendered keeping in view the facts involved in those cases and without laying down any law, as indicated above. 28. In Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), the Allahabad High Court has opined that, to constitute 'permanent partial disablement', within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act, it must be such disablement which reduces the earning capacity of a workman in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time of the accident and, therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the earning capacity of a workman has been reduced in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time of accident and not merely in the particular employment in which he was engaged at the time, of accident, resulting in the disablement. Similar view has also been taken by the Bombay High Court in Ahmed Abdul (supra), arid by the Punjab High Court in Bhagat Sing Ram Saran (supra) while considering the definition of 'partial disablement' and 'total disablement' as defined in Section 2(1)(g) and in Section 2(1)(h) of the Act, respectively. Similar view has also been taken by the Bombay High Court in Ahmed Abdul (supra), arid by the Punjab High Court in Bhagat Sing Ram Saran (supra) while considering the definition of 'partial disablement' and 'total disablement' as defined in Section 2(1)(g) and in Section 2(1)(h) of the Act, respectively. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Calcutta Licensed Measurers Bengal Chamber of Commerce (supra), while considering the definition, of 'partial disablement' in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act, has observed that in case of disablement, of a temporary nature, loss of earning capacity which is spoken is in any employment in which he was engaged at, the time of accident resulting in the disablement, in other words, the employment in which the workman was engaged at the time of accident is immaterial and; in case of disablement of permanent nature, the reduction of earning capacity is spoken with regard to every employment in which the workman was capable of undertaking at the time of accident resulting in disablement. The same view has been reiterated by Calcutta High Court in Ram Naresh Singh (supra). A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in C. David (supra) has also opined that to award compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the Commissioner has to see whether the earning capacity of the injured has been reduced in every employment and not merely in the particular employment in which he was engaged at the time of accident. A Single Bench of Karnataka High Court in The Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. (supra) has also taken the same view. I agree with the view expressed in those decisions, for the reasons recorded above. 29. A Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in Shivalinga Shwanagowda Patil (supra), while considering the provisions of the Act, including the definition of 'partial disablement' under Section 2(1)(g) and of 'total disablement' under Section 2(1)(h) and the entitlement of the amount of compensation under Section 4 of the Act, has opined that to determine as to whether the workman has suffered from total disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, what has to be seen, whether the injury incapacitates the workman from performing all the work in which he was capable of performing at the time of accident resulting in such disablement and not in reference to the work which he was performing before the accident. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Vanajakshan (supra) has also taken the same view. 30. Having held so, I shall now deal with the question - whether the workmen are entitled to compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) as awarded by the learned Commissioner or under Section4(1)(d) of the Act, in the cases in hand? 31. In WC Case No. 32/05, which gives rise to MFA No. 2/2007, two witnesses on behalf of the workman were examined. The workman in his application filed before the Commissioner, WC has stated that because of the injury sustained by him he is not in a position to do any work with his right hand and such injury has incapacitated him from driving vehicle, for which he was discharged from service by the owner, as he has become permanently disabled following the accidental injury. In his deposition before the learned Commissioner, the workman (witness No. 1) proved the injury report of the doctor, as Ext.3. He has, however, not stated anything relating to his incapacity to perform any other work or about reduction of his earning capacity in every employment, which, he was capable of undertaking at the time of accident. During cross-examination by the Appellant Insurance Company, he has stated that he can do his own household work and he is agreeable to submit himself for further treatment, as he is not fully cured. Dr. Suresh Ch. Sarma (witness No. 2) who examined the workman, and issued the injury report in his deposition has stated about the injuries sustained by the workman and also stated that the injury No. 1 (fracture of right ulna) is grievous which is permanent partial and also about his percentage of disablement and loss of earning capacity, which he has assessed at 30%. During cross-examination, the doctor, however, has stated that after removal of plaster cast, it was seen that alignment of fractured part (injury No. 1) was alright but movement was restricted and for such restricted movement, exercises were advised on 8.1.2005, as has been done normally. He has further stated that after examination on 31.1.2005, he did not consider for advising further treatment and even did not advise for doing further X-ray. The doctor has also stated that he did not issue, any certificate to the effect that the workman cannot continue his job as driver. 32. He has further stated that after examination on 31.1.2005, he did not consider for advising further treatment and even did not advise for doing further X-ray. The doctor has also stated that he did not issue, any certificate to the effect that the workman cannot continue his job as driver. 32. The workman in WC Case No. 33/05, which is the subject-matter in MFA No. 3/2007, also examined two witnesses, namely the workman himself and the doctor, who treated him, in support of his averments in the application filed before the Commissioner, WC claiming compensation stating inter alia that because of the injuries suffered by him he lost the original strength of his right hand and has become permanently disabled as a result of the accidental injury and as he cannot drive vehicle, he was discharged from service by the owner. The workman (witness No. 1) in his deposition has stated that the injury in his hand is not cured and he is unable to drive any vehicle and unemployed. He has also proved the injury report as Ext. 3. The workman, however, in his deposition has not stated that his disablement has reduces his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time of accident, Dr. Suresh Ch. Sarma (witness No. 2) who treated the workman, in his deposition, has stated that injury No. 1, i.e., fracture of both bones of right forehand is grievous, which is permanent partial and assessed the disablement at 35% and loss of earning capacity at 30%. During cross-examination, this witness has, however, stated that before issuing certificate (Ext. 3) he did not get a fresh X-ray of the fractured injury and he in the said certificate has not mentioned whether the radius and Ulna had joined properly or not. He has further stated that he cannot say whether disablement, as stated in the certificate still exists, without examining the workman. He has further admitted that while issuing the disablement certificate, he did not take into consideration the provisions of the Act. 33. Likewise the workman in WC Case No. 34/05, which gives, rise to MFA No. 4/2007, also examined two witnesses, namely the workman himself and the doctor who treated him and issued the certificate. He has further admitted that while issuing the disablement certificate, he did not take into consideration the provisions of the Act. 33. Likewise the workman in WC Case No. 34/05, which gives, rise to MFA No. 4/2007, also examined two witnesses, namely the workman himself and the doctor who treated him and issued the certificate. The workman in his application filed for awarding compensation has stated about the injuries sustained by him in the accident and also that though the doctor removed the plaster cast on his right hand for the treatment of hummer, the injury was not found to be improved, that he became permanently disabled as a result of the accidental injury and that he was discharged by the owner of the vehicle as he was not capable of driving vehicle of any kind. While deposing before the Commissioner, the workman (witness No. 1), however, has not stated anything about his incapacity to do any work which he was capable of performing at the time of accident or about reduction of his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at that time. He has, however, proved the injury certificate dated 29.1.2005 (Ext.4) issued by the doctor. During cross-examination by the Insurance Company, the workman has stated that no X-ray was done after removal of plaster cast on his hand and doctor did not give any report that the bones were not joined. He has further stated that doctor also did not give any report that he needs further treatment. The doctor who treated the workman was examined, as witness No. 2 (Dr. Suresh Ch. Sarma), who also stated about the injuries suffered by the workman. The doctor has further stated that supra condylar fracture of right humerous (injury No. 2) is permanent partial and the disablement is of 35%. The doctor also assessed the loss of earning capacity at 35%. During cross-examination, the doctor has stated that the X-ray plate (Ext. 6) is not of the injured hand of the workman and he did not get another X-ray done before issuing the certificate (Ext.4). He has also admitted that such a certificate was issued on the basis of the injury found on 8.11.2004. The doctor has further stated, during cross-examination, that he did not state in his certificate (Ext.4) that the workman cannot continue his profession as driver due to the injuries. He has also admitted that such a certificate was issued on the basis of the injury found on 8.11.2004. The doctor has further stated, during cross-examination, that he did not state in his certificate (Ext.4) that the workman cannot continue his profession as driver due to the injuries. He has further stated that while issuing such certificate he did not take into consideration the provisions of the Act. 34. It appears from the evidences on record and also the certificates proved by the workmen as well as by the doctors that the workmen suffered the following injuries: In MFA 2/2007: (WC Case No. 32105). 1. A contusion on Rt. elbow joint X-ray examination showed fracture olecranon process of Rt. ulna. 2. Several bruises on both legs. 3. A contusion on Rt., Supra orbital region. In. MFA 3/2007: (WC Case No. 33105). (1) A painful swelling over Rt. Forearm. X-ray examination showed fracture of the both bones of Rt. Forehead. (2) A lacerated injury on Rt. Leg below the knee joint. (3) A contusion on forehead. In MFA 4/2007: (WC Case No. 34/05). (1) A stitched lacerated injury on Rt. Leg above the ankles joint. (2) A contusion on Rt. Elbow Joint with blackening of skin over it. X-ray examination showed supra condylar fracture of Rt. Humerus. 35. In the instant cases, it appears from the evidences adduced by the doctors, as discussed above, and also the certificates of injuries and the loss of earning capacity proved by the doctors before the learned Commissioner that while assessing the loss of earning capacity of the workmen concerned, they did not have the regard to the percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation of different injuries specified in Schedule I of the Act. The doctors have assessed the loss of earning capacity of the workmen either at 30% or at 35%. 36. In all the WC Cases registered on the basis of the applications filed by the workmen for awarding compensation, the owners of the vehicles concerned have in their written statements filed admitted that they removed the workmen from service as they are incapable to drive the vehicle because of the injury sustained. 36. In all the WC Cases registered on the basis of the applications filed by the workmen for awarding compensation, the owners of the vehicles concerned have in their written statements filed admitted that they removed the workmen from service as they are incapable to drive the vehicle because of the injury sustained. Evidences on record, as discussed above, however, do not suggest that the disability suffered by the workmen has reduces their earning capacity in every employment which they were capable of undertaking at the time of accident, i.e., the employment other than driver, so as to constitute 'permanent partial disablement' within the meaning of the Act, though there are evidences on record that such disablements have reduce their; earning capacity in the employment (in these cases, as driver) in which they were engaged at the time of accident resulting in disablement. That apart, it appears from the evidences on record that such disablement is of a temporary nature. The workmen concerned did not lead any evidence to show that the disablements suffered by them have reduces their earning capacity in every employment, which they were capable of undertaking at the time of accident, apart, from their employment as drivers. Therefore, the workmen have suffered 'temporary partial disablement' within the meaning of the Act. 37. As noticed above, compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) can be assessed only in the event 'permanent partial disablement' results from the injury caused to the workmen. In case of 'temporary disablement' whether total or partial, which results from the injury caused to the workman, he is entitled to compensation to be assessed under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act, i.e., half monthly payment of the sum equivalent to 25% of monthly wages of the workman, to be paid in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2). There is no dispute in these cases that the disablements caused last for, a period of more than 28 days. The workmen concerned would therefore be entitled to half monthly payment under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act, subject of course to review that may be done by the learned Commissioner under Section 6 of the Act., 38. The monthly wages of the workmen concerned in MFA Nos. 2/07, 3/07 and 4/07, being Rs. 4,000 they are entitled to Rs. The workmen concerned would therefore be entitled to half monthly payment under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act, subject of course to review that may be done by the learned Commissioner under Section 6 of the Act., 38. The monthly wages of the workmen concerned in MFA Nos. 2/07, 3/07 and 4/07, being Rs. 4,000 they are entitled to Rs. 1,000 in every half month, under Section 4(1)(d), to be paid in accordance with the Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act for a period of 5 years from the respective dates of accident, i.e., w.e.f. 25.11.2004, 10.5.2004 and 7.11.2004, respectively, subject to the orders that may be passed by the learned Commissioner under Section 6 of the Act, in the event of fulfilling the conditions to exercise such power. There is also no proof of any condition stipulated in proviso (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act in these cases. The learned Commissioner is, therefore, directed to work out, within 1(one) month from the date of appearance of the workmen and Insurance Company, the total amount due and payable to the workmen till date under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act and to release the same to the concerned workmen out of the amount deposited by the Insurance Company before him, after deducting the amount already paid pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court. The said amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act. The workmen shall, apart from the said amount, be also entitled to half monthly payment under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act till completion of the period of 5 (five) years from the date of accident, which shall be paid to them in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The parties entitled to file applications under Section 6 of the Act seeking review of half monthly payment, are at liberty to file the same, subject to fulfillment, of the conditions stipulated therein. It is, however, made clear that if the amount deposited by the Insurance Company has already been paid to the workmen, which may be in excess of their entitlement, the same shall not be recovered from the Respondents/workmen. Such direction has been issued keeping in view the financial condition of the workmen concerned. The workmen and the Insurance Company are directed to appear before the learned Commissioner on 14.10.2008. 39. Such direction has been issued keeping in view the financial condition of the workmen concerned. The workmen and the Insurance Company are directed to appear before the learned Commissioner on 14.10.2008. 39. The appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. The awards passed by the learned Commissioner stand modified accordingly. No costs. 40. Registry is directed to send down the records forthwith. Appeal allowed