SURESH PASWAN v. M/S. KLA CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: M. R. SHAH
KRISHNA MURARI
Judgment Date: 2022-09-16
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is quashed and set aside. The appellant is entitled to Rs. 3,76,236/- towards compensation with interest for the disability suffered by him, which the appellant has already withdrawn earlier. This amount shall be treated as full and final settlement of the claim towards compensation with interest for the disability suffered. The balance amount lying in deposit with the High Court/Commissioner may be withdrawn by the respondent/employer, if not withdrawn so far.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed?}

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

SURESH PASWAN

Respondents

M/S. KLA CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ajay Choudhary

Counsels for Respondents

• Amit George
• K. K. Shukala
• Kartickay Mathur
• Anand Shankar
• D Pulkit Tare

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Civil Appeal by an injured employee challenging an order of the Delhi High Court that set aside an Award under the Employees’ Compensation Act. The claimant, Suresh Paswan, fell from the roof of a first-floor construction site, sustaining injuries that were assessed as a 60% permanent disability by a 2009 disability certificate. The Commissioner awarded Rs. 3,74,364 as compensation based on the 60% disability, but the High Court later allowed the employer’s appeal after a Medical Board, directed by the High Court in 2017, concluded there was no permanent disability. The Supreme Court notes that the disability certificate existed from 2009 and the Medical Board examined the employee after a nine-year gap; it also observes that the employer did not seek earlier Medical Board examination. Considering that the injury affected earning capacity at the relevant time, the Court holds that some compensation was warranted, notwithstanding the later medical board finding. It further observes that, under prior orders, the employee had already withdrawn Rs. 3,76,236 from a deposited sum of Rs. 7,52,471, and directs that this amount be treated as full and final settlement of the disability claim with interest. The High Court’s impugned judgment is quashed to the extent of enhancing the settlement. The appeal is partly allowed.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the compensation payable under the Employees’ Compensation Act should be calculated based on the 60% permanent disability evidenced by the 2009 disability certificate. He relied on the fact that the Medical Board’s later report (2017) concluded there was no permanent disability, but notes that the certificate dates back to 2009 and that the Medical Board examined him after a long interval of about nine years. The petitioner argues that the employer did not seek earlier adjudication or board examination and that the 60% earning-capacity impairment at the relevant time merits compensation; the earlier award and withdrawals should be treated consistently with ends of justice, with the amount already withdrawn treated as full and final settlement; the deposit balance may be released to the employer if not withdrawn.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the disability certificate of 2009 could not be treated as conclusive given the Medical Board’s 2017 finding of no permanent disability after long lapse since the accident. They argue that the High Court rightly quashed the compensation based on lack of permanent disability, and that the employer’s failure to obtain a contemporaneous Medical Board examination undermined the appellant’s claim. They emphasize the need to follow updated medical assessments and question whether the 60% disability claim remained valid after nearly a decade; consequently, no further compensation beyond the previously deposited sums should be awarded.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 7 S.C.R. 218 [2022] 7 S.C.R. A ## SURESH PASWAN v. M/S. KLA CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. & ORS. B (Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2022) ## SEPTEMBER 16, 2022 ## **[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]** - _Compensation – Appellant-employee fell down from the roof_ - _of the first floor and suffered grievous injuries while working at_ - C _the construction site under the respondent-employer – Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarded Rs.3,74,364/- towards compensation – Order set aside by High Court – On appeal, held : Disability Certificate was issued by the doctor in 2009 and the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order passed by the High_ - D _Court examined the injured employee after a period of approximately nine years from the date of accident – Appellant did suffer the injuries due to fall and at the relevant time, it affected his 60% earning capacity – Pursuant to the earlier order passed by the High Court, out of total sum of Rs. 7,52,471/- deposited by the respondent, the appellant has already withdrawn 50% of the amount, i.e.,_ - E _Rs. 3,76,236/- – This shall be treated as full and final settlement of his claim towards compensation with interest for the disability suffered – Order passed by the High Court set aside._ ## **Partly allowing the appeal, the Court** - F **HELD: It is true that the Medical Board in its report dated 09.11.2017 has opined that the appellant has not suffered any permanent disability. However, at the same time, the disability certificate issued was of the year 2009 and the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order passed by the High Court examined the injured employee after a period of approximately** - G **nine years from the date of accident. Considering the fact that the appellant did suffer the injuries due to fall and at the relevant time, it affected his 60% earning capacity, it may not be that nothing was to be awarded to the appellant – injured employee by way of compensation. Pursuant to the earlier order passed by** - H **the High Court, out of total sum of Rs. 7,52,471/- deposited by** 218 219 SURESH PASWAN v. M/S. KLA CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. **the respondent, the appellant has already withdrawn 50% of the** A **amount, i.e., Rs. 3,76,236/-. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Under the circumstances and in the facts of the case, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 3,76,236/- towards compensation with interest for the disability suffered by him, which the appellant has already** B **withdrawn and be treated as full and final settlement of the claim of the appellant towards compensation with interest for the disability suffered by him. [Paras 3-5][220-F-G; 220-H; 221-AD]** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2022. C From the Judgment and Orders dated 27.04.2018 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO No.511 of 2016. Ajay Choudhary, Adv. for the Appellant. Amit George, K. K. Shukala, Kartickay Mathur, Anand Shankar, D Pulkit Tare, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ## **M. R. SHAH, J.** 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in First Appeal No. 511 of 2016, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent – employer and has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarding compensation of Rs. 3,74,364/- to the appellant herein, the injured employee has preferred the present appeal. 2. That the appellant filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. It was the case on behalf of the appellant that while he was working at the construction site under the respondent-employer, he fell down from the roof of the first floor and suffered grievous injuries, which resulted in 60% permanent disability. The appellant relied upon the disability certificate dated 13.09.2009 issued by Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, Gardiner Road Hospital, Patna certifying that the appellant sustained 60% disability, which was as a result of the accident. It appears that the respondent – employer disputed the disability certificate dated 13.09.2009 E F G H 220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. - A as well as his disability as assessed 60% under the said disability certificate. The learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,74,364/- towards the compensation taking the permanent disability of the appellant as 60%. - 2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by - B the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarding Rs. 3,74,364/towards the compensation considering the permanent disability of the appellant as 60%, the respondent – employer preferred appeal before the High Court. Before the High Court, an application was submitted by the employer to constitute a Medical Board to examine the permanent disability of the appellant. By order dated 21.03.2017, the High Court - C directed the Medical Superintendent of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital to constitute a Medical Board to examine the disability of the appellant. The Medical Board submitted the report dated 09.11.2017 and according to the said report the appellant did not suffer any permanent disability. Therefore, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has - D allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 herein and has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. Hence, the present appeal is at the instance of the original claimant – employee. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at E length. We have also gone through and considered the earlier disability certificate dated 13.09.2009 relied upon by the claimant as well as the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation as well as the report dated 09.11.2017 of the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order passed by the High Court dated 21.03.2017. It is true that the Medical Board in its report dated 09.11.2017 has opined that the appellant has F not suffered any permanent disability. However, at the same time, it is required to be noted that the disability certificate issued by Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, Gardiner Road Hospital, Patna was of the year 2009 and the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order passed by the High Court examined the injured employee G after a period of approximately nine years from the date of accident. At the relevant time, the employer did not make any application before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation to constitute a Medical Board and the injured be examined by the Medical Board. The employer ought to have made such a request before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation at the earliest opportunity. Be that as it may, considering - H 221 SURESH PASWAN v. M/S. KLA CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.] the fact that the appellant did suffer the injuries due to fall and at the A relevant time, it affected his 60% earning capacity, it may not be that nothing was to be awarded to the appellant – injured employee by way of compensation. 4. It is reported that pursuant to the earlier order passed by the High Court, out of total sum of Rs. 7,52,471/- deposited by the B respondent, the appellant has already withdrawn 50% of the amount, i.e., Rs. 3,76,236/-. Under the circumstances and in the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to Rs. 3,76,236/- by way of compensation with interest, which the appellant has already withdrawn, it shall meet the ends of justice. C 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. It is directed that the appellant is entitled to a total sum of Rs.3,76,236/- towards compensation with interest for the disability suffered by him, which the appellant has already withdrawn earlier. Therefore, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,76,236/- withdrawn by the appellant be treated as full and final settlement of the claim of the appellant towards compensation with interest for the disability suffered by him. The balance amount lying in deposit with the High Court/Commissioner may be withdrawn by the respondent/ employer, if not withdrawn so far. D E 6. Present appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above. Divya Pandey (Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA) Appeal partly allowed. F G H