Remanded

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Shiv Ram and Another

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2021FAFO/81/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appeal against an Employees' Compensation Commission award finding 40% disability based on the term 'PPRD' is admitted on a substantial question of law. The judgment clarifies that the Commission was the last authority on facts but erred in not explaining the acronym. The matter is remanded to allow parties to summon a medical expert to clarify the term.

What did the court decide?

The matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner to summon a qualified doctor to explain the meaning of PPRD/PPRP and determine its correlation to the accident.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 81 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Sri Shiv Ram And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Agrawal

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶6

In this appeal which has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of award dated 24.11.2020 passed by learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and Dy. Labour Commissioner, Agra in ECA No. 158 of 2010., it is submitted that disability certificate produced from the office of Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad makes a mention of PPRD/PPRP (Rt), lower limbs disability at 40%. It is submitted that as per his research this PPRD/PPRP (Rt) means post polio residual disability and post residual paralysis and that cannot be said to be disability contacted due to accident. Therefore, Tribunal was in error in accepting the certificate and making computation accordingly.

¶7

Sri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the respondent in his turn submits that firstly such plea was not taken by the Insurance Company before the Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act and secondly as per judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Golla Rajanna Vs. Divisional Manager and another as reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45, an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act can be admitted only on substantial questions of law and as far as the Workmen Compensation Commissioner is concerned, under the scheme of the Act, he is last authority on facts.

¶8

After hearing counsel for the parties, it is true that as far as Commissioner under Employees' Compensation Act/ Workmen Compensation Act is concerned, he is last authority on facts, but at the same time if the authority which is under the scheme of the Act is last authority on facts has not appreciated facts and has not adverted to the meaning of acronym PPRD in the award then award passed without appreciating meaning and full nomenclature of acronym PPRD/PPRP it cannot be said that Tribunal has been able to understand correct facts in totality before passing an award. In view of such facts, judgment in case of Golla Rajanna Vs. Divisional Manager and another

¶9

(Supra) will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. There is serious dispute. Case has checkered history. Therefore, to do complete justice between the parties, it is necessary that meaning of PPRD is explained by the doctor concerned who had issued medical certificate if they are not available at this point of time than by the doctor in the concerned field.

¶10

Therefore appeal is admitted on substantial question of law namely as to whether the learned Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act was in error of judgment and fact while not trying to understand and decipher meaning of PPRD/PPRP as the case may be and computing permanent disability at the rate of 40% without understanding the meaning of terminology.

¶11

Appeal is admitted. Since it is factual inquiry and evidence can be adduced only before the learned Tribunal, therefore, matter is remanded to the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and Dy. Labour Commissioner, Agra to afford an opportunity to the parties to summon qualified doctor and if possible one of the author of the disability certificate and adduce the evidence only on this limited ground as to what is the meaning of PPRD/PPRP, and further whether it has any co-relation to the accident or not.

¶12

Parties shall appear before the learned Commissioner on 25.2.2021 for which no separate notice will be required. Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act shall make an endevour to afford opportunity of adducing evidence to the rival parties within 15 days from their first appearance and after taking such evidence shall decide the issue afresh within further period of 15 days.

¶13

Order Date :- 3.2.2021 S.K.S.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Shiv Ram and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Shiv Ram and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Bahadur Nishad and Another Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and 6 Others

Uttrakhand Parivahan Nigam Vs Balkeerat Singh and 2 Others

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Meena Devi and 3 Others

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kamlawati Devi and 5 Others

Sarla @ Rani Vs Sahiram Yadav and 2 Others

Sarla @ Rani and Another Vs Sahiram Yadav and 2 Others