New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Santhosh and P. K. Balan (MFA No. 556 of 2002)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: J.B. Koshy
K.P. Balachandran
Judgment Date: 2007-07-31
Court Decision / Holding: The appeal is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Respondents

Santhosh
P. K. Balan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Miscellaneous First Appeal (MFA No. 556 of 2002) before the Kerala High Court arises from a Workmen’s Compensation claim relating to an accident on 22 May 2000 during the course of employment of the first respondent (Santhosh), a driver earning Rs. 3,000 per month. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner awarded Rs. 1,87,182 as compensation, calculating the loss of earning capacity (LOEC) at 75% based on Exhibit A12 (a disability certificate) by Dr. T. G. Gopinathan, which the Commissioner treated as the basis for non-scheduled injury compensation under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Insurance Company appealed, contending that 75% LOEC is excessive and that the computation should accord with the Act and the medical certificate. The respondent driver’s evidence included left knee ACL injury with pain and mobility issues, and the cross-examination did not disclose reasons to disbelieve the medical opinion. The High Court invoked the principle that LOEC is distinct from disability (as held by the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata) and held that LOEC must be assessed as per the doctor’s certificate under the statutory framework, finding no ground to interfere. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. The case underscores the deference to medical evidence in LOEC determinations under the Act.

Provisions of Law Cited

Workmen’s Compensation Act, Section 4(1)(c)(ii)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Loss of earning capacity is different from physical disability (as held in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal’s 75% loss of earning capacity (LOEC) for a driver is excessive. It submits that LOEC must be assessed under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act based on medical evidence and the doctor’s LOEC certificate, and that the statutory method should guide compensation rather than an arbitrary figure. The appellant emphasizes that the wage basis (Rs. 2,000 of Rs. 3,000) and the non-scheduled injury framework require strict adherence to the Act and medical certificates, and challenges the quantum arising from the disability certificate (Exhibit A12).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on the medical certificate (Exhibit A12) and the Tribunal’s finding of 75% LOEC for a driver, supported by the medical witness’ evidence. They contend that the injury and resulting incapacity justify the LOEC determined by the Commissioner, and that the cross-examination did not discredit the medical opinion. The respondents urge upholding the Tribunal’s calculation under the Act, consistent with the doctor’s assessment and the statutory framework governing non-scheduled injuries.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata	(1976) 1 SCC 289	Positive	Cited to distinguish LOEC from disability and to support reliance on medical certificates within the statutory LOEC framework under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2007 / 9TH SRAVANA 1929 MFA.No. 556 of 2002(B) ------------------------------------WCC.165/2002 of W.C.C.,THRISSUR .................... ## APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY II: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDOMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL ## RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & OPPOSITE PARTY I: 1. SANTHOSH, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, NEDIYAMBATH HOUSE, THALIKULAM. 2. MR.P.K.BALAN, IV/169, CATHEDRAL JUNCTION, IRINJALAKUDA. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.3283/2002 IN MFA 556/2002 ## DISMISSED 31.7.2007 SD/-J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE SD/-K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE ## /TRUE COPY/ J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------- M.F.A.No. 556 of 2002 --------------------------------- ## **JUDGMENT** Koshy, J. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The first respondent met with an accident during the course of his employment. He applied for compensation before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.The Commissioner assessed compensation at Rs.1,87,182/-. The accident occurred on 22.5.2000. Even though he was getting Rs.3,000/- per month, in view of the limitation provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Rs.2,000/- was taken as the monthly income. From the driving licence his date of birth was found as 30.5.1970 and index was taken for a 30 year boy. The contention of the Insurance Company is that 75% loss of earning capacity taken by the Tribunal is on the higher side. As per the wound certificate, MFA 556/02 2 he suffered the following injuries: **==> picture [246 x 55] intentionally omitted <==** There was some complication and finally skin grafting, etc. was also done. The Commissioner, as per Exhibit A12 disability certificate, assessed loss of earning capacity of of the appellant as a driver at 75%. The Commissioner found as follows: “The Disability certificate issued to the applicant was marked as Exhibit A12. The Doctor T.G.Gopinathan, B.Sc., MBBS, D.Ortho., Aswini Hospital, Thrissur, who issued the disability certificate was present before this Authority and tendered evidence as Medical Witness AW2. According to him, the present complaints of the applicant are shown below: MFA 556/02 3 1. Pain on walking with bulging of the muscle on the middle of the left leg. 2. Difficulty in climbing steps, difficulty in squatting due to the above said problems. 3. Instability of the left knee due to the Anterior Cruciate Ligament injury. 4. Sensory loss on the area of grafting and below that area. When the applicant was examined, he deposed as follows: MFA 556/02 4 The doctor who issued the certificate was assessed the loss of earning capacity at 75% as a driver. The learned counsel for the second opposite party cross examined the medical witness and nothing was brought out to disbelieve the assessment made by a qualified medical practitioner. Hence, I also decide that the loss of earning capacity of the applicant is 75% as a driver.” It cannot be stated that the Tribunal has calculated compensation in an arbitrary manner. Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides the manner in which compensation should be calculated for a non scheduled injury, by which, it is provided that compensation shall be granted based on the assessment of loss of earning capacity made by the doctor. Loss of earning capacity is different from physical disability, as held by the Supreme Court in **Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata** ((1976) 1 SCC 289). The Commissioner is bound to assess the loss of MFA 556/02 5 earning capacity considering the assessment made by the qualified medical practitioner. Here, loss of earning capacity was assessed and calculated the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act and considering the medical certificate. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is dismissed. (J.B.Koshy, Judge) 31[st] July, 2007 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv MFA 556/02 6 J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------M.F.A.No.556 of 2002 --------------------------------- **JUDGMENT** 31[st] July, 2007