Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs P.Rajangam on 20 September, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 09.01.2025
DELIVERED ON : 29.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7432 of 2024
The Divisional Manager,
M/s.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office,
K.J.R Complex, No.16,
North Veli Veethi,
Madurai-1. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.P.Rajangam
2.S.Rajagopal ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to allow the civil revision petition and set aside the
order passed in I.A.No.133 of 2023 in E.C.No.15 of 2023, dated 20.09.2023
on the file of the Employee's Compensation Commissioner Court, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024
For R-1 : Mr.A.Theethar
For R-2 : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed in I.A.No.133 of 2023 in E.C.No.15 of 2023, dated 20.09.2023 on the file of the Employee's Compensation Commissioner Court, Madurai. The revision is preferred by the Insurance Company.
2. Aggrieved by the dismissal of its application to refer the claimant to the Medical Board for its opinion in order to enable the Commissioner for Employee's compensation to arrive at a just compensation payable to the claimant. The original petition in E.C.No.15 of 2023 was filed by the first respondent herein seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place during the course of his employment. The claim is being opposed by the petitioner / Insurance Company on various grounds.
The nature and gravity of the injuries suffered by the claimant are also disputed by the Insurance Company. During trial, the Insurance Company filed the instant application in I.A.No.133 of 2023 seeking reference to the Medical Board.
2/13https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024
3. The said application was opposed by the claimant primarily contending that the reference to the Medical Board is wholly unnecessary in the light of the disability certificate issued by a private doctor. The Commissioner, Employee's Compensation passed an order, dated 20.09.2023, dismissed the application concluding that it will unnecessarily delay the proceedings. Aggrieved by this, the present revision is preferred.
4. I have heard Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Theethar, learned Counsel for the first respondent.
Though the second respondent served, failed to appear either in person or through Counsel.
5. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that in cases of injuries not specified in Schedule-I, the percentage of compensation has to be assessed by a qualified medical practitioner.
Therefore, the reference to the Medical Board is essential to enable the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation to determine the compensation payable to the claimant precisely. He would also invite the attention of this Court stating that the Commissioner has failed to follow the guidelines 3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024 issued by the Madras High Court in M/s.Tatta AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Prabhu reported in 2016 (1) TNMAC page 609.
Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, examination of the claimant by the Medical Board is essential, in order to help the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation in arriving at just compensation. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company would also rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Karunakaran @ Kannan Vs. Abdul Rasheed reported in 2016 (1) TNMAC 208 (DB) (Kerala).
6. Contending contra, Mr.A.Theethar, learned Counsel for the first respondent would submit that the direction issued by this Court in Prabhu's case (Supra) have been substantially diluted in the subsequent judgments of this Court in 2017 (1) TNMAC 106 and the further directions have also been issued by another Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court subsequently.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsels on either side.
4/13https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024
8. The question that arises is as to whether examination by the Medical Board should be made mandatory in a cases relating to employees' compensation or should it be restricted to cases where an element of guess work is involved in the determination of the compensation by the Commissioner and in cases where the Commissioner finds medical evidence that is available on record is not sufficient to enable the Tribunal to assess the just compensation.
9. This Court in C.R.P.No.586 of 2018 [The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Venugopal and Others] has held as follows:
"10. As rightly pointed out by Mr.J.Micheal Visuvasam, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, an element of guess work is involved in cases where the injury is not one specified in the schedule I of the enactment. Schedule I to the enactment lists out certain injuries, which are mostly cases of amputation or loss of a body part. It does not include cases of fracture, which may give raise to a permanent total or permanent partial disablement. Therefore, necessarily the Commissioners, Employees' Compensation has to look into the medical evidence that is made available before them to arrive at 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024 the just compensation. It is needless to point out that this involves an element of guess work also. One should also not lose sight of the fact that an appeal against the order of the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation lies to this Court only on a substantial questions of law. This Court cannot go into the questions of fact in an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Act. The scope of the appeal under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 has been succinctly stated by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Golla Rajanna & Others Vs. The Divisional Manager & Others reported in 2017 (1) TNMAC 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has while concluding that the scope of the appeal is very limited has observed as follows:
“11. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.”
11. As already pointed out, in cases which are not covered by the schedule, Section 4(i)(c)(ii) provides that the compensation payable in case of permanent total disablement 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024 arising out of injuries which are not specified in the schedule to the enactment. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation has to necessarily fall back on the medical evidence that is produced by the parties. Even though Section 11 provides for medical examination of the claimant / employee by the employer, with the extension of the scope of the enactment to cases arising out of accidents even outside the work place, in the course of the employment, employers and the fact that the Insurance is made available to cover such claims, the employers do not take the trouble of getting the employees to medically examined. It is common knowledge that cases arising under the Employees' Compensation Act have become almost akin to case arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, where the Insurance Companies are made to defend the cases on their own without any aid from the employers concerned.
12. Yet another aspect highlighted by Mr.J.Micheal Visuvasam should also, in my opinion, be borne in mind. The fact that the Commissioners of Employees' Compensation are not either legally qualified or legally trained persons and when the task of appreciation of evidence is vested in such persons, the element of risk of them misconstruing the evidence is more. No doubt, the Section 25A of the enactment provides for a time limit for completion of the enquiry under the Act but even today, the time period prescribed is followed more in breach than in 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024 compliance. The fact that the Act prescribes a time limit cannot deter the Tribunal from seeking the best evidence.
13. As already pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Another reported in 2010 (1) TNMAC 581, the Tribunals should not be silent spectators or neutral umpires as in civil suits. They will have to be an active explorers and seekers of truth in determining the just compensation payable. In The Branch Manager, TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Prabhu and another reported in 2016 (1) TANMAC 609, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had laid down the following guidelines for medical examination of the claimants in cases of injuries:-
“23. For any and all the above reasons, we hereby deem it fit and proper to issue the following directions:
“i) We hereby direct that in motor accidents claims the claims tribunals shall issue a letter to Medical Board in the District of Tamil Nadu. Within whose jurisdiction the claim petition was pending and in case there was no Medical Board in the said District to the nearest District Medical Board, to examine the injured claimant/victim and issue a certificate of disability within such time as may be specified by the claims tribunal.
ii) We hereby direct that the Medical Board/s shall assess the permanent disability or lack thereof as per the Disability (Permanent Physical Impairment) Assessment and Certification- Guidelines & Gazette Notification-8/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024 issued by Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India- Regd No.DL33004/99 (Extraordinary) Part II, Sec 1, June, 13, 2001- published by National Institute for the Orthopedically Handicapped.
iii) We hereby direct that the Medical Board shall be at liberty to follow its procedures and practices or conduct tests as they may deem fit, for issuance of such certificates of disability while following the procedure laid down in the Manual above.
iv) We hereby direct that the Medical Board/s shall be at liberty to charge such fee as may be required from the insurance companies or transport corporations or such other contesting parties, as the case may be, to pay the same as part of the costs of the proceedings, to the concerned Medical Board.
v) We hereby direct that the Claims Tribunal shall, upon receipt of the certificate of disability, in sealed cover from the medical Board/s concerned, shall issue a certified copy of the said certificate to the contesting parties, on application
vi) We hereby direct that Claims Tribunals shall mark the certificates of disability without need for any oral evidence or insisting upon the appearance of Medical Board official or personnel or Doctor, ordinarily, as a matter of course. However, in exceptional cases, this would not preclude the Claims Tribunals, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suo motu or at the request of the contesting parties to direct the author/s of the certificate/s of disability, from the Medical Board/s, to appear before the Claims Tribunal to answer clarifications, if any, sought for.
vii) We hereby direct that the above said 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024 procedure and procedure shall come into force on and from 1/8/2016 and time granted thereof shall be utilized by all the stakeholders to arrange for necessary logistics support for smooth conduct of proceedings under the new dispensation.
viii) We hereby direct that High Court Registry shall issue a Circular on these directions along with the judgment with reasons to be sent to Medical Boards in all Districts of Tamil Nadu through the Registry of the District Courts in Tamil Nadu, as soon as possible.
(ix) We hereby make it clear that it shall be open all stakeholders including the Registries and Medical Boards concerned, to approach this Court for any clarifications or changes or modifications they envisaged for the better implementation of this new dispensation, intended to serve the cause of the innocent motor accidents victims/claimants, as the case may be and this Court shall be obliged to consider the same in the circumstances of the case.”
14. No doubt, these guidelines were framed in a case arising under the Motor Vehicles Act but the same can be applied to a case under the Employees' Compensation Act also, where the injury is not one specified under the schedule. In 2017 (1) TNMAC 106, the another Division Bench of this Court had vested the discretion in the Tribunal to decide whether the medical evidence produced by the claimants are credible and if the Tribunal is satisfied with the evidence the directions issued in Prabhu's case (Supra) would not apply.
10/13https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024
15. Looking at from any angle, the object of reference to the Medical Board is to weed out the element of guess work and reduce the uncertainty in the determination of just compensation. Therefore, I do not think that the Commissioner, Employees Compensation was right in dismissing the application filed by the Insurance Company and concluding that decision relating to the reference to the medical board could be taken after the evidence of the claimant's Doctor is recorded. I am of the considered opinion that at least in cases, which are not covered by the injuries mentioned in the schedule, the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation would be justified in referring the injured claimant to the medical board so as to have the final opinion on the nature of the injuries and the extent of disability caused by such injuries. The Division Benches, earlier, have laid down the procedure to be followed in such references. Once the medical board gives an opinion, the necessity of oral evidence, in respect of such opinion can also be dispensed with. This would definitely save lot of time in examination of the medical experts or Doctors of the claimant before the Commissioners concerned."
10. Therefore, if the injuries are not covered by the schedule to the enactment and the injuries are of such nature that there will be an element of 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024 guess work in deciding the extent of permanent disability caused by such injuries, the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation shall refer the claimant to the Medical Board.
11. For the aforementioned reason, this Civil Revision Petition is therefore, allowed and the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation is directed to refer the claimant to the Medical Board and obtain the report of the Medical Board for determining the compensation payable to the claimant. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
29.01.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
BTR
To
The Employee's Compensation Commissioner Court, Madurai.
12/13https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024 K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
BTR Order made in C.R.P(MD)No.1288 of 2024 29.01.2025 13/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis