National Insurance Co Ltd vs Raj Kumar And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 453 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 877/2011

National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office, Panch Batti,
Jaipur through Regional Office, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur.
                                        ----Non-Claimant No.2-Appellant
                                   Versus
1. Raj Kumar S/o. Shri Dhanna Lal, aged 38 years, Resident of
House No.108, Kalyan Nagar Colony, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                    ----Claimant-Respondent

2. Smt. Shashi Diwan W/o. Shri Vijay Kumar Diwan, Resident of House No.346/1, Rajapark, Tilak Nagar, Shivanand Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Non-Claimants-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg, through VC, Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

19/01/2021

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

10.01.2011 passed by the Court of Workman Compensation

Commissioner, Jaipur.

Assailing the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant

contended that in spite of the respondent having permanent

disability to the extent of 21% as per permanent disability

certificate, the Commissioner has erred in assessing the same to

the extent of 40% for the purposes of assessment of loss of

earning capacity.

Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant supporting the

findings recorded by the Commissioner, submitted that there has

(2 of 2) [CMA-877/2011]

been no error in assessing the loss of earning capacity of the

claimant in view of his nature of work and the appeal deserves to

be dismissed as no substantial question of law is involved therein.

Relying on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Versus The Divisional Manager &

Anr., Etc. Etc.- MACD 2017(1) (SC) 1, learned counsel

submitted that the Court of Workman Compensation

Commissioner is the last authority of facts and hence, the findings

of facts recorded by the Commissioner do not require any

interference by this Court.

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

It is trite that loss of earning capacity can be more or less,

as the case may be, than the permanent disability suffered in the

accident by the claimant looking to his nature of his occupation. In

the present case, since, the respondent claimant was a driver and

in view of compound fractures in his right hand, in considered

opinion of this Court, the Commissioner has committed no error in

assessing his loss of earning capacity as 40% i.e. beyond 21%

permanent disability suffered by him. Since, the appeal does not

involve any substantial question of law and as per the dictum of

Hon'ble Apex Court in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. (supra), the

Court of Workman Compensation Commissioner is last authority of

facts, I find no merit in this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

DANISH USMANI /02

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)