Supreme Court of India
SURESH PASWAN versus M/S. KLA CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. & ORS. on 16 September 2022
218
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
A
SURESH PASWAN
v.
M/S. KLA CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIESPVT. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6523 of 2022)
B
SEPTEMBER 16, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Compensation – Appellant-employee fell down from the roofof the first floor and suffered grievous injuries while working atCthe construction site under the respondent-employer – Commissioner,Employees’ Compensation awarded Rs.3,74,364/- towardscompensation – Order set aside by High Court – On appeal, held :Disability Certificate was issued by the doctor in 2009 and theMedical Board constituted pursuant to the order passed by the HighDCourt examined the injured employee after a period of approximatelynine years from the date of accident – Appellant did suffer theinjuries due to fall and at the relevant time, it affected his 60%earning capacity – Pursuant to the earlier order passed by the HighCourt, out of total sum of Rs. 7,52,471/- deposited by the respondent,the appellant has already withdrawn 50% of the amount, i.e.,ERs. 3,76,236/- – This shall be treated as full and final settlement ofhis claim towards compensation with interest for the disabilitysuffered – Order passed by the High Court set aside.Partly allowing the appeal, the CourtFHELD: It is true that the Medical Board in its report dated09.11.2017 has opined that the appellant has not suffered anypermanent disability. However, at the same time, the disabilitycertificate issued was of the year 2009 and the Medical Boardconstituted pursuant to the order passed by the High Courtexamined the injured employee after a period of approximatelyGnine years from the date of accident. Considering the fact thatthe appellant did suffer the injuries due to fall and at the relevanttime, it affected his 60% earning capacity, it may not be thatnothing was to be awarded to the appellant – injured employeeby way of compensation. Pursuant to the earlier order passed byHthe High Court, out of total sum of Rs. 7,52,471/- deposited by the respondent, the appellant has already withdrawn 50% of theamount, i.e., Rs. 3,76,236/-. The impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Underthe circumstances and in the facts of the case, the appellant isentitled to Rs. 3,76,236/- towards compensation with interest forthe disability suffered by him, which the appellant has alreadywithdrawn and be treated as full and final settlement of the claimof the appellant towards compensation with interest for thedisability suffered by him. [Paras 3-5][220-F-G; 220-H; 221-A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6523of 2022.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 27.04.2018 of the HighCourt of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO No.511 of 2016.
Ajay Choudhary, Adv. for the Appellant.
Amit George, K. K. Shukala, Kartickay Mathur, Anand Shankar,Pulkit Tare, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FirstAppeal No. 511 of 2016, by which the High Court has allowed the saidappeal preferred by the respondent – employer and has set aside theorder passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awardingcompensation of Rs. 3,74,364/- to the appellant herein, the injuredemployee has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant filed an application for compensation beforethe Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. It was the case on behalfof the appellant that while he was working at the construction site underthe respondent-employer, he fell down from the roof of the first floorand suffered grievous injuries, which resulted in 60% permanent disability.The appellant relied upon the disability certificate dated 13.09.2009 issuedby Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer,Gardiner Road Hospital, Patna certifying that the appellant sustained60% disability, which was as a result of the accident. It appears that therespondent – employer disputed the disability certificate dated 13.09.2009
AB
C
D
EF
G
H
Aas well as his disability as assessed 60% under the said disabilitycertificate. The learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensationawarded a total sum of Rs. 3,74,364/- towards the compensation takingthe permanent disability of the appellant as 60%.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed byBthe Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarding Rs. 3,74,364/-towards the compensation considering the permanent disability of theappellant as 60%, the respondent – employer preferred appeal beforethe High Court. Before the High Court, an application was submitted bythe employer to constitute a Medical Board to examine the permanentdisability of the appellant. By order dated 21.03.2017, the High CourtCdirected the Medical Superintendent of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospitalto constitute a Medical Board to examine the disability of the appellant.The Medical Board submitted the report dated 09.11.2017 and accordingto the said report the appellant did not suffer any permanent disability.Therefore, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order hasDallowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 herein andhas set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Employees’Compensation. Hence, the present appeal is at the instance of the originalclaimant – employee.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties atElength. We have also gone through and considered the earlier disabilitycertificate dated 13.09.2009 relied upon by the claimant as well as thelearned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation as well as the reportdated 09.11.2017 of the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the orderpassed by the High Court dated 21.03.2017. It is true that the MedicalBoard in its report dated 09.11.2017 has opined that the appellant hasFnot suffered any permanent disability. However, at the same time, it isrequired to be noted that the disability certificate issued by Dr. UmeshKumar Singh, Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, Gardiner Road Hospital,Patna was of the year 2009 and the Medical Board constituted pursuantto the order passed by the High Court examined the injured employeeGafter a period of approximately nine years from the date of accident.At the relevant time, the employer did not make any application beforethe Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation to constitute a MedicalBoard and the injured be examined by the Medical Board. The employerought to have made such a request before the Commissioner, Employees’Compensation at the earliest opportunity. Be that as it may, consideringH
the fact that the appellant did suffer the injuries due to fall and at therelevant time, it affected his 60% earning capacity, it may not be thatnothing was to be awarded to the appellant – injured employee by wayof compensation.
A
4. It is reported that pursuant to the earlier order passed by theHigh Court, out of total sum of Rs. 7,52,471/- deposited by theBrespondent, the appellant has already withdrawn 50% of the amount, i.e.,Rs. 3,76,236/-. Under the circumstances and in the facts of the case, weare of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to Rs. 3,76,236/- by wayof compensation with interest, which the appellant has already withdrawn,it shall meet the ends of justice.
C
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, presentappeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. It is directed that theappellant is entitled to a total sum of Rs.3,76,236/- towards compensationwith interest for the disability suffered by him, which the appellant hasalready withdrawn earlier. Therefore, the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,76,236/- withdrawn by the appellant be treated as full and finalsettlement of the claim of the appellant towards compensation with interestfor the disability suffered by him. The balance amount lying in depositwith the High Court/Commissioner may be withdrawn by the respondent/employer, if not withdrawn so far.
D
E
6. Present appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above.
Divya Pandey
(Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA)
Appeal partly allowed.
F
G
H