Delhi High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Dev Raj Joshi on 5 May, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 443/2011
% 5th May, 2014
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ......Appellant
Through: Mr. D.D.Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
DEV RAJ JOSHI ...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Pratima N. Chauhan, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This first appeal is filed by the insurance company against the
judgment of the Commissioner dated 30.4.2011 which has allowed the claim
petition filed by the respondent claiming compensation on account of
injuries suffered in an accident arising out of and in the course of
employment.
2. Respondent herein was employed as a driver of the truck
bearing registration HR-55D-5457 belonging to respondent no.2 herein. On
21.1.2009 when the subject vehicle was on its occupational trip from Garh
Devi, Surat to Delhi, it met with an accident at about 8.00 AM when the
FAO 443/2011 Page 1 of 4
vehicle was under the jurisdiction of the police station Modasa Rural. The
accident took place as a result of another vehicle coming from the opposite
direction and ramming into the subject vehicle. FIR was registered in police
station Modasa Rural, district Sabarkanta. Appellant suffered grievous
injuries in his leg which was operated upon and a rod and a plate were
affixed in his leg and also skin grafting was done. Respondent no.1 was
about 30 years of age at the time of the accident.
3. Respondent no.2-employer filed his written statement before
the Commissioner and admitted the factum of employment as also the
accident. The employer also stated that the aspect with respect to the
accident was informed to the insurance company and it was requested to
process the case without any delay.
4. Before the Commissioner the appellant was respondent no.2,
and in spite of the fact the employer admitted to the accident, copy of the
FIR was filed besides also the requisite medical certificate with respect to
the injury was filed, yet, insistence was made by the appellant for evidence
to be led for the quantum of injury. Consequently, the respondent no.1 was
asked by the Commissioner to personally appear before him and which he
did and the injury of the respondent no.1 to his right leg below the knee was
FAO 443/2011 Page 2 of 4
witnessed. Appellant-respondent no.2 still insisted for examination of the
doctor Sh. K.B.Gupta who had issued certificate of loss in earning capacity
and who was summoned and thereafter cross examined on behalf of
respondent no.1.
5. The only argument urged before this Court on behalf of the
appellant was that the employee could not have been granted compensation
taking the disability as 100% .
6. The argument urged on behalf of the appellant is, if I can say so
too late by 36 years because way back in 1976 a Division Bench of four
judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo Vs.
Srinivas Sabata and Anr. 1976 ACJ 141 has held that once an employee is
incapable of performing work which he was performing before the accident,
the case will be of 100% disability. I may note that the definition of 'total
disablement' under Section 2(l) of the Act specifically states that total
disablement means that such disablement, whether of a temporary or
permanent nature, which incapacitates an employee for all work which he
was capable of performing at the time of accident resulting in such
disablement. Surely, respondent no.1 in this case, and who was a driver,
would not be given a driving licence in view of the condition of his leg and
FAO 443/2011 Page 3 of 4
accordingly the present case is clearly a case of total disablement and fully
covered by the ratio of the judgment in the case of Pratap Narain Singh
Deo (supra).
7. No other issue or aspect is urged before this Court.
8. There is hence no merit in the appeal, and the same is therefore
dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
MAY 05, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
