Orissa High Court
Executive Engineer, Nawarangpur ... vs Istapan Gonda (And After Him) Krupamani ... on 16 May, 2003
Equivalent citations: I(2004)ACC678, 2005ACJ904, 96(2003)CLT173, 2003(II)OLR139
Author: Pradip Mohanty
Bench: Pradip Mohanty
JUDGMENT Pradip Mohanty, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') against the order dated 6.5.1999 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compentsation-cum-Joint Labour Commissioner, Jeypore, Koraput in W.C. Case No. 1 of 1998.
2. The case of the claimant-respondent is that one Istapan Gonda (respondent) filed a claim case in Form-F under the Act for payment of compensation against the Executive Engineer, Mawarangpur Electrical Division (appellant) stating that he was working as a line man under the appellant. On 19.11.1993 while he was engaged in 33/11 KV line climbing on a ladder he fell down and sustained multiple fracture injuries. After the accident he was admitted in Nawarangpur Government Hospital and was treated as indoor patient till 13.2.1994. However, he was not cured till the filing of the case. Moreover, he was unable to. stand for half an hour due to the above injuries. For the above reasons, the claim petition could be filed on 7.1.1998 only along with a petition for condonation of delay. Subsequently after hearing the claimant and considering the initial deposition given by the claimant, the delay was condoned by the Commissioner.
3. On receipt of notice, the appellant-opposite party filed written statement denying their liability. In order to prove his case, the claimant-respondent examined as many as four witnesses including claimant himself and the appellant-opposite party examined two witnesses including himself.
4. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Commissioner vide his order dated 6.5.99 directed the appellant to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 1,07,762/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 19.11.1993 over and above the amount of compensation in shape of bank draft within thirty days.
Mr. B. K. Pattanaik, counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that disability and loss of earning capacity cannot be assessed in absence of the evidence of the doctor who was treating the respondent and contended that no doctor has been examined by the claimant-respondent in support of his case. He further contended that the delay was condoned by the Commissioner without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. He also contended that the claimant-respondent had joined his duty by giving fitness certificate from the treating doctor and availed all benefits. He also submitted that since the claimant was re-engaged and was getting his usual salary there was no loss of earning capacity and therefore, the question of any compensation does not arise. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the claimant, on the otherhand, submitted that the argument advanced by the appellant cannot be sustained. It is argued that re-engagement cannot deprive the workman of his getting the benefit of compensation. He further submitted that the Commissioner has rightly condoned the delay as per the settled principle of law.
5. For appreciation of rival contentions reference to Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act is necessary. The same reads as follows :
"4(1)(c)(ii) in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule 1, 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."
6. The plea of the appellant is that, in case of continuance of engagement and non-reduction in earnings, the claimant cannot claim any compensation. It is important to realise that an award for loss of earning is different from that of compensation for loss of earning capacity. The compensation for loss of future earnings is awarded for real assessable loss approved by evidence. Disability cannot be equated with loss of earning power. Loss of earning capacity would depend upon not only the physical condition of the injured and the seat of injury, but would also depend upon the nature and character of the avocation of the workman at the time when he sustained the injury. The evaluation of injuries is objective. For a particular injury in relation to a particular avocation it may result in double disablement in earning capacity whereas it need not be same with respect to another avocation. Therefore, percentage of disablement cannot be co-extensive with loss of earning capacity in all situations. Loss of earning capacity has nexus with the adoption provision of the workman and expert like the doctor certainly is competent to opine regarding disablement but the same cannot be said in the case of loss of earning power. Loss of earning power though is consequent upon the disablement, percentage of the same cannot and /or need not be the same as the percentage of disablement.
7. Undoubtedly, the Act is a welfare legislation aimed to aid the workman who becomes incapacitated because of the injury sustained during the course of employment. Therefore, the argument advanced by the appellant has no force with regard to loss of earning capacity. The plea of employment advanced by the counsel for the appellant in case of continuous engagement and non-reduction in earning capacity has no force and is without any merit. So far as the quantum is concerned, P.W. 4 stated in his evidence that after joining in duty, the petitioner was given light work. Thereafter due to injury he left service voluntarily. In such circumstances, the Commissioner has rightly assessed the quantum of compensation so also the interest in view of the decision in the case of Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. v. Pravati Kar and Anr. reported in 2002 (2) OLR 399. Similar view has also been taken by the apex Court in the case of Rathi Menon v. Union of India reported in 2001(2) Supreme Today 314.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.