AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.—The extent of the disability of the injured workman, who was a Driver, has been determined at 100% in view of the fact that his leg was shortened as a result of the accident, which arose out of and was in the course of his employment, as after the amputation he is wholly unfit to continue to work as a Driver. The insurer in this appeal, contends that the Commissioner, as also the learned single Judge were in error in holding that the extent of the disability is total.
Total disablement" is defined in Section 2(1) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act thus:
total disablement" means such disablement whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement".
The Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs. Srinivas Sabata and Another, at paragraph 5, after referring to the definition of "total disablement", observed thus:
It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the 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.
The court upheld the finding that had been recorded by the Commissioner that the amputation of the hand of the carpenter had resulted in permanent total disability.
The position of the claimant in this case is not very different from the carpenter whose claim was considered by the Apex Court in that decision. Even as a carpenter cannot work without one hand, so also, a person cannot expect to be employed as a Driver where his leg has been shortened. It was not the case before the Commissioner that the injured would still be fit to work as a Driver, despite the extent of the injuries suffered by him. In the order of the Commissioner, it has been stated that the injured had suffered grievous injuries in the left leg, that he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Pattukottai on 7-12-1998, was discharged from that hospital the next day, and later was admitted at the Christian Fellowship Hospital, Oddanchathram, where he took treatment as inpatient for twelve days and, thereafter, he was in the Nursing Home at Madurai for 79 days as inpatient. It is also noted by the Commissioner that the injured underwent skin grafting operation three times. And that he has a foot drop which has resulted in his being permanently disabled from driving the vehicle, or even doing his normal daily work.
In this state of the evidence, we do not find any error in the conclusion reached by the Commissioner which has been affirmed by the learned single Judge that the extent of the disablement was permanent and total. Though the Doctor, who has examined, did not mention that the disablement was total, that fact is evident from the other evidence before the Court. The extent of the incapacity caused to the injured in earning an income is not entirely a matter for the Doctor to opine. It is a matter to be determined by the court having regard to the evidence on record. That is what has been done by the Commissioner whose finding has been affirmed by the learned single Judge.
The sum of Rs. 92,0885/- awarded to the injured claimant as compensation for his permanent total disablement is, therefore, not excessive. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 11428 of 1995 is dismissed.