[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Divisional Controller(Manager) vs Ganpatbhai Batabhai Barot Since ... on 9 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1388/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1388 of 2012
==========================================================
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER(MANAGER)
Versus
GANPATBHAI BATABHAI BAROT SINCE DECEASED THRO LEGAL HEIRS
& ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK C RAWAL(719) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.3,1.4,1.5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 09/04/2026
ORDER
1. By way of this First Appeal filed u/s 30 of the Workman
Compensation Act, 1923, the appellant has prayed to quash
and set aside judgment and award dated 12.8.2011 passed by
the learned Workman Commissioner, Himmatnagar in WC
Non Fatal Application No.17 of 1997, whereby the appellant
was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.4,06,656/- with 12%
interest from the date of the application till realization and
25% of accident compensation being Rs.1,01,664/- by way of
penalty.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 The deceased workman Ganpatbhai was serving as
driver with the appellant Corporation and on 18-12-1995 the
bus met with an accident by dashing with a standing truck
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1388/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
while going from Himmatnagar depot to Dedhrota. The
deceased workman suffered grievous injury and was admitted
in the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad from 18-12-1995 upto 18-7-
1996 and his both legs were cut.
2.2 The original claimants has filed aforestated WC Non
Fetal Application No. 17 of 1997 before the learned Workman
Commissioner, which was allowed.
2.3 Hence, present First Appeal.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik Rawal for the
appellant. Respondent Nos.1.1, 1.2 and 1.6 have expired and
they are survived by remaining respondents, but they have
chosen not to contest the proceedings though they have been
served with advocate notice.
4. Referring to the order dated 11.5.2012, learned
advocate Mr. Rawal would submit that while admitting the
First Appeal, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has given due
weightage to the case of the deceased, who was driver of the ST
corporation and also prima facie held that assessment of 100%
disability is erroneous and upon such finding, the Coordinate
Bench of this Court has disbursed 50% of the total amount
deposited.
5. Having heard learned advocate Mr. Rawal, at the outset,
the uncontroverted fact was that the deceased was driver of S.T.
bus, dashed with a standing truck while going from
Himmatnagar depot to Dedhrota and lost his two legs. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1388/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
medical certificate assessed disability in tune of 50%, but the
learned Workman Commissioner considered the fact that the
deceased being driver after losing two legs, could not work.
6. What requires to be assessed about functional disability
that the learned Workman Commissioner has decided 100%
functional disability. Giving job of light work out of
humanitarian approach may not compensate the functional
disability which the claimant suffered to the tune of 100%.
The law has been well established by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 of
course on jurisdiction of MV Act, but a corollary can be drawn
there from.
7. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of R.Halle
Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2026
INSC 260 taken assistance from the judgment of Raj Kumar
(supra) and emphasized to assess the functional disability
instead of physical disability. Relevant para 27 to 31 reads as
under:-
"27. This Court, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar,
(2011) 1 SCC 343 has authoritatively laid down the
principles governing assessment of permanent and
functional disability for the purpose of awarding
compensation. It has been held that the percentage of
permanent disability assessed by a medical expert
cannot be mechanically equated with the percentage
of loss of earning capacity. What is required to be
determined is the actual impact of such disability on
the earning capacity of the injured, having regard to
his avocation, age and the nature of work performed.
The Tribunal is required to undertake a structured
analysis to ascertain the activities the claimant can or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1388/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
cannot perform post-injury, the nature of his
profession prior to the accident, and whether the
disability has resulted in total incapacity or merely
restricted or reduced earning capacity. For ready
reference, the relevant extracts from the said
judgment are reproduced hereinbelow: -
9. The percentage of permanent disability is
expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole
body, or more often than not, with reference to a
particular limb. When a disability certificate states
that the injured has suffered permanent disability to
an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the
same as 45% permanent disability with reference to
the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or
part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage
of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be
assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole
body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right
hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does
not mean that the extent of permanent disability with
reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus
60%). If different parts of the body have suffered
different percentages of disabilities, the sum total
thereof expressed in terms of the permanent
disability with reference to the whole body cannot
obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent
disability as a result of injuries, the assessment
of compensation under the head of loss of future
earnings would depend upon the effect and
impact of such permanent disability on his
earning capacity. The Tribunal should not
mechanically apply the percentage of permanent
disability as the percentage of economic loss or
loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases,
the percentage of economic loss, that is, the
percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising
from a permanent disability will be different
from the percentage of permanent disability.
Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all
cases, a particular extent (percentage) of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1388/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
permanent disability would result in a
corresponding loss of earning capacity, and
consequently, if the evidence produced show
45% as the permanent disability, will hold that
there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In
most of the cases, equating the extent
(percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the
extent (percentage) of permanent disability will
result in award of either too low or too high a
compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal
is the effect of the permanent disability on the
earning capacity of the injured; and after
assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms
of a percentage of the income, it has to be
quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the
future loss of earnings (by applying the standard
multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency . We may however note that in some
cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment,
the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of
earning capacity as a result of the permanent
disability, is approximately the same as the
percentage of permanent disability in which case, of
course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage
for determination of compensation. (See for example,
the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra
v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC
254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258: (2010) 10 Scale
298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567]
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves
three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain
what activities the claimant could carry on in
spite of the permanent disability and what he
could not do as a result of the permanent
disability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of
amenities of life). The second step is to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1388/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of
work before the accident, as also his age. The
third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant
is totally disabled from earning any kind of
livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the
permanent disability, the claimant could still
effectively carry on the activities and functions,
which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether
he was prevented or restricted from discharging
his previous activities and functions, but could
carry on some other or lesser scale of activities
and functions so that he continues to earn or
can continue to earn his livelihood.
[Emphasis supplied]
28. In view of the principles laid down by this Court
in Raj Kumar (supra), as consistently affirmed
thereafter, the assessment of functional disability
must be grounded in a realistic appraisal of the
impact of the injury on the claimants capacity to earn.
The inquiry is not confined to the numerical
percentage of physical impairment certified by the
Medical Board, but extends to evaluating whether the
claimant, in light of his educational background, skill
set and nature of employment, is capable of
meaningfully pursue his avocation.
29. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the
appellant-claimant was admittedly employed as a
Manager in a private concern, a role inherently
dependent upon sustained cognitive functioning,
including memory retention, analytical ability,
executive decision-making, coordination and effective
communication. The neuropsychological report on
record evidences severe impairment in verbal and
visual memory, frontal lobe dysfunction, and an IQ
score of 65 placing him within the category of Mild
Intellectual Disability.
30. Further, the Medical Board has recorded that the
injuries resulted not only in cognitive impairment but
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1388/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
also in partial blindness and orthopedic limitations
affecting mobility and stability. When these physical
and neurological impairments are cumulatively
evaluated, it becomes manifest that the appellant-
claimants ability to effectively discharge his pre-
accident duties stands substantially and irreversibly
impaired. The evidence does not indicate a mere
diminution in efficiency, rather, it demonstrates a
profound erosion of the faculties essential for gainful
employment in his chosen field. These impairments
strike at the core competencies indispensable for the
effective discharge of managerial responsibilities and
substantially undermine the appellant-claimants
ability to perform the essential functions inherent in
such a position. In such circumstances, and bearing
in mind the settled principle that functional disability
must reflect the actual loss of earning capacity, we
are persuaded to hold that the disability in the
present case, for the purpose of computation of
compensation, deserves to be reckoned at 100%. It is
beyond the pale of doubt that, having suffered such
grave medical and neurological impairments, the
appellant-claimant would neither be considered
suitable for the managerial post nor would he be
capable of effectively discharging the onerous
responsibilities attached to the said post, particularly
in light of his present condition, which is likely to
deteriorate progressively over time.
31. Consequently, in light of the foregoing discussion
and considering that the functional disability suffered
by the appellant-claimant is to be assessed at 100%
for the purpose of computing loss of earning capacity,
the compensation payable to the appellant-claimant
warrants re-determination so as to ensure the award
of just and fair compensation in accordance with law.
"
8. In view of above, according to this Court, the learned
Workman Commissioner has not committed any error much
less an error of understanding the law and fact. The first
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1388/2012 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
blush order dated 11.5.2012 would not come in the way of this
Court to hold that the learned Workman Commissioner has
rightly assessed 100% disability to a driver, who has lost his
two legs in an accident. Hence, this Court finds that no
substantial question of law is involved in the matter.
9. Resultantly, present First Appeal fails and stands
dismissed.
10. The learned Workman Commissioner is directed to
disburse the remaining amount of compensation deposited by
the appellant to the claimants after due verification and
identification along with interest and after verifying their
right to claim the compensation.
11. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to
the concerned Court forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
