Gujarat High Court
Regional Director vs Sunilkumar Lalchand Bhatt on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1856/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1856 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Versus
SUNILKUMAR LALCHAND BHATT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 30/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter be referred to as the "Corporation") under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter be referred to as the 'ESI Act") against the judgment and order dated 9.12.2009 passed by the learned Employees State Insurance Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as the "ESI Court") in ESI Second Appeal No. 05 of 2007, whereby the learned ESI Court partly allowed the appeal Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1856/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined of the respondent employee and held that he is entitled to 30% permanent disability on account of employment injury sustained in his right eye. The appellant- Corporation challenges the said judgment on the ground that the ESI Court has erred in law and on facts in assessing the disability at 30% when the Medical Board and the Medical Appellate Tribunal, both expert bodies, had assessed the disability at 0%.
2.The facts giving rise to present appeal are that the respondent employee, while in the course of employment, suffered an accident resulting in injury to his right eye. The Medical Board assessed 0% permanent disability after clinical examination, as the right eye vision was noted as 6/18. The Medical Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (MAT Appeal No. 20/2005) confirmed the said assessment of 0% disability. Against the said order, the respondent preferred ESI Second Appeal No. 5/2007 before the ESI Court, Ahmedabad.
2.1 After hearing both the sides, the ESI Court had framed the following issues for determination:
1. Whether the appellant (insured employee) proves that the order passed by the Medical Appellate Tribunal is illegal and unjust?Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1856/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed, i.e., determination of permanent disability on the basis of loss of vision in the right eye?
3.What order?
2.2 The ESI Court answered Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative, and Issue No. 3 accordingly, holding that the employee sustained 30% permanent disability. The ESI Court, after reappreciating the material and after evaluating the evidence, held that the respondent's right eye vision was 6/36, which, according to the Court, amounts to loss of earning capacity as per Schedule II, Item 32 of the ESI Act, and accordingly assessed the disability at 30%.
3. Heard Mr.Sachin Vasavada, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Prabhakar Upadyay, learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation has submitted that both the Medical Board and the Medical Appellate Tribunal, which are expert bodies constituted under the ESI Act, have found that the respondent's right eye vision is 6/18, and therefore assessed 0% disability. He has further submitted that the ESI Court has erred in substituting its own view over the expert opinion without any supporting medical evidence. He has submitted that Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1856/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined the ESI Court misapplied Item No. 32 of Schedule II of the ESI Act, which contemplates 30% loss of earning capacity only in cases where there is complete loss of vision of one eye and in the present case, the respondent has partial vision of 6/18, which cannot be equated with total loss of sight.
4.1 Leaned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the impugned judgment and order enhancing the disability from 0% to 30% is arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law, and the same deserves to be set aside or suitably modified.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has supported the judgment of the ESI Court. He has submitted that the ESI Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award. He has submitted that the impugned order is in consonance with the settled legal principle.
5.1 Learned advocate for the respondent has further submitted that the ESI Court has rightly relied upon the medical record showing that the right eye vision was 6/36, which amounts to serious impairment of vision. He has submitted that considering the schedule to the ESI Act, loss of earning capacity must be computed liberally Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1856/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined in favour of the injured employee.
5.2 Learned advocate for the respondent urges before the Court that present appeal may not be entertained and the same may be dismissed and impugned judgment and award passed by the ESI Court may be confirmed.
6. I have gone through the relevant material and documents produced on record. I have also perused the record and proceedings as well as impugned judgment and order passed by the ESI Court. The Medical Board and the Medical Appellate Tribunal are statutory expert bodies under the ESI Act entrusted with the task of determining the extent of disablement. Their concurrent finding was that the respondent's right eye vision was 6/18, and not 6/36 as assumed by the ESI Court. The ESI Court, without obtaining any further medical evidence or opinion, held that the vision was 6/36 and equated it to total loss of sight. This finding is not supported by the record.
7. As per Schedule II, Part II, Item No. 32 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, "Loss of sight of one eye, the other being normal" carries a loss of earning capacity of 30%. However, the respondent's right eye retains 6/18 vision, which indicates partial impairment Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1856/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined and not total loss. Considering the partial visual impairment and applying the principle of proportionality, this Court is of the view that the reasonable assessment of permanent disability would be 10%, representing a fair compensation for diminished vision and partial loss of efficiency. The ESI Court therefore, committed an error in substituting the expert assessment of 0% with 30% without any cogent reason or medical basis.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that while the respondent has suffered some loss of vision due to the employment injury, the same cannot be treated as total loss of sight warranting 30% disability. A just and reasonable assessment would be 10% permanent partial disability.
9. In view of the above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2009 passed by the learned ESI Court, Ahmedabad in ESI Second Appeal No. 5 of 2007 is modified to the extent that the permanent disability of the respondent is assessed at 10% instead of 30%. The rest of the findings of the ESI Court are confirmed.
10. The respondent-employee is entitled to all consequential benefits payable under the ESI Act @ 10% Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1856/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined permanent disability and on the basis of that, the amount of compensation is to be calculated by the Corporation and to be paid to the respondent herein, after proper verification of his bank details and after following due procedure through RTGS/NEFT. There shall be no order as to costs. Record and proceedings, if received, be sent back to the concerned ESI Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:43 IST 2025