INDIRABAI AND ORS. v. DIV. MANAGER,UNI. INSR. CO. LTD. AND ANR. INSC 38

INDIRABAI AND ORS. v. DIV. MANAGER 17 July, 2023 Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Facts: In Indirabai and Ors. v. Div. Manager, Indirabai, the appellant, was a loading/unloading laborer for Truck No. MPF 7567, owned by Respondent 2 and insured by Respondent 1. On the day of the incident, she and other laborers were loading poles/pillars onto the truck when a chain pulley broke and fell on her. This caused severe injuries to her left arm, including a compound fracture that required surgery with plates and screws. The accident left her left hand completely useless due to nerve damage, causing loss of finger movement and muscle atrophy. Medical evidence, including a disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, confirmed a 50% permanent disability and declared her unfit for labor work. The happening of accident, the appellant was a lady who was 30 years of age and was earning Rs. 3,000 per month. Compensation under Section 4(1)(b) was calculated by the Commissioner due to her age, her wage, and extent of disability and arrived at Rs. 3,74,364.

Issue: Whether Indirabai is entitled to compensation for the permanent disability caused by a workplace accident?

Decision: The Supreme Court restored the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, which had assessed Indirabai's disability as total and awarded compensation of ₹3,74,364. The High Court’s reduction of the disability assessment to 40% and corresponding reduction in compensation were set aside. The Court reasoned that “total disablement” under Section 2(1)(l) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is defined by the incapacity to perform the work one was capable of prior to the accident. Indirabai, employed as a laborer requiring the use of both hands, had lost complete functionality in her left hand. This rendered her unfit to perform her job, meeting the legal threshold for total disablement. The High Court’s reliance on a medical determination of 50% disability and subsequent adjustment to 40% was held erroneous, as functional disability, not merely physical impairment, is the determining factor. The Commissioner’s assessment aligned with precedent that functional incapacity to perform a specific job due to injury constitutes total disablement. The Supreme Court underscored the need to evaluate the nature of work and practical inability, affirming the appellant’s claim for full compensation.

No dissenting opinion

Impact: The judgment by the Supreme Court strengthens the concept that functional disability, rather than mere physical impairment, is what determines compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This ruling ensures greater protection for workers by emphasizing their incapacity to perform specific job roles, thus upholding their rights to fair compensation in workplace injury cases.