Gauhati High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Alok Dey And Anr on 17 November, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010194512011
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MFA/108/2011
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24- WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI, AND
ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES AT G S ROAD, DISPUR, GHY, AND A
DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT BHANGAGARH, GHY.
VERSUS
ALOK DEY and ANR
S/O LT. SIB NATH DEY NO.3, BALUCHAR, P.O. DHUBRI, DIST. DHUBRI,
ASSAM.
2:SRI SUJIT KUMAR DAS
S/O SAMBHU DAS NO.3
BALUCHAR
DHUBRI
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : S S SHARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR G J SHARMA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
JUDGMENT
Date : 17-11-2021
Page No.# 2/4
Heard Mr. H. Buragohain learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.
S.S. Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Kuddush,
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation
Act, whereby, the judgment dated 25.08.2009 passed by the
Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Dhubri in W.C. Case No.
26/2004 is put to challenge.
3. On 22.05.2003, the respondent was on duty. One police jeep
knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries on
both of his hands, head, legs etc. The respondent claims that he became
crippled and handicap because of the aforesaid accident. On the basis of
the aforesaid facts he filed a claim case and the Commissioner Workmen's
Compensation, Dhubri awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,12,350/-.
4. The appeal was admitted for hearing upon two substantial questions
of law. They are -
(1) Whether the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation
was justified in awarding compensation without examining the
doctor who issued the certificate?
(2) Whether the wages within the meaning of Section 2(2)m of the
Employee's Compensation Act includes the daily wages, if not,
whether the learned Commissioner was justified in determining the
amount of compensation payable taking into account the daily
wages?
Page No.# 3/4
5. Today, Mr. Buragohain has submitted that the Commissioner held
that the percentage of loss of earning capacity was 60% and that too
without examining any doctor.
6. Par contra Mr. Kuddush has submitted that the in the impugned
judgment, it has been explained properly as to why there was no
necessity of examining a doctor who assessed the disability of the
respondent.
7. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by
the learned counsel for both the sides.
8. The relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment is quoted as
under:
"Though the computation was not done by the doctor in
respect of loss of earning capacity, but this court after gone
through the Disability Certificate and nature of injury and
other environmental circumstances assessed the percentage of
loss of warning capacity at 60% as the claimant's both hands
became weak due to the injury sustained by him and therefore
he cannot do his earlier job (i.e. handyman of a vehicle). In
this connection I would like to place Court's Ruling
"Determination of most important and paramount thing for the
Commissioner is to consider nature of work, nature of injury
and other environmental circumstances for assessing
compensation-determination of loss of earning capacity of a
men/woman being a question of fact and is not necessarily co-
extensive with loss of physical capacity - loss of earning
capacity neither a matter of medical opinion nor a matter to
which medical witness can possibility speak-Assessment of loss
of earning capacity being a question of fact depends upon
Page No.# 4/4
factual material placed before the Authority" - Citation
2003(2) T.A.C. 686 (Mad), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Smti Ponnammal & Others (C.M.P. No. 17000 of 1998, decided
on 25th April, 2003)."
9. Now this court is of the opinion that the learned Commissioner has
correctly appreciated the law and arrived at a correct finding while
determining the quantum of disability of the respondent. The first
substantial question is answered accordingly.
10. The learned counsel for both the sides have submitted that the
second substantial question of law is unnecessary in this appeal. Therefore
this question was not pressed.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts, this court finds that there is no merit
in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
12. LCR shall be returned.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
