Allowed

United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. K.M.Ashok Kumar

Kerala HC3 Feb 2009MFA (ECC)/104/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The court held that compensation must be assessed based on the loss of capacity for all work the injured workman was capable of, not just his specific job. The order was remitted for medical board assessment of loss of earning capacity.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and remitted to the Commissioner for medical assessment of loss of earning capacity in light of Vanajakshan v. Joseph.

United India Insurance Co.Ltd Vs K.M.Ashok Kumar — Kerala HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

MFA.No. 104 of 2007(A) -------------------------WCC.87/2001 of W.C.C.,THRISSUR ....................

¶6

APPELLANT(S): 3RD OPPOSITE PARTY; -------------------------------------------------

¶7

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT AND 1ST AND 2ND OPPOSITE PARTIES:

¶10

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶11

1. K.M.ASHOK KUMAR, S/O.K.MUTHUKUMARAN, KURUPATH HOUSE, ALLAMPALLAM, KALLEPPULLY, PALAKKAD.

¶12

2. P.A.AZEES, PAZHERI HOUSE, ALLAMPALLAM, KALLEPPULY,PALAKKAD.

¶13

3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PALAKKAD.

¶14

ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R1 SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3

¶15

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A.(W.C.C.) NO. 104 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2009

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

This appeal is preferred against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Thrissur in W.C.C.87/01. The claimant was a driver and the car driven by him met with an accident when it collided with a lorry and he sustained injuries. The Compensation Commissioner found the loss of earning capacity at 80% and awarded the compensation and directed the appellant, United India Insurance Company to pay the amount. It is against that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal.

¶20

A perusal of the order on issue No.4 would reveal

¶21

that the Compensation Commissioner has not followed the dictum laid down in Vanajakshan v. Joseph (2003 (2) KLT 462(FB). It is held in that decision that,

¶22

“The compensation has to be determined with reference to the loss in earning capacity and not the ability to perform the duties of the job, which was

¶23

M.F.A.(W.C.C.) NO. 104 OF 2007 -:2:-

¶24

being done by the workman at the relevant time. The compensation has to be assessed on the basis of the percentage of the loss earning capacity. While determining the loss of earning capacity the authority has to keep in view the loss of capacity of a workman “for all work which he was capable of performing” and not for the work which he was actually doing. The competent authority has to award compensation on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties during the proceedings. The compensation has to be assessed with reference to the loss in earning capacity and not on the basis of the ability to perform the duties on a particular job, which was being performed by the workman. If, in a given case a workman is able to prove that he was incapable of doing any other job, the competent authority shall consider and decide the matter in the light of the evidence as adduced by the parties.”

¶25

What is laid down in that decision is that it is not the disability that is occasioned on a particular job is to be taken into consideration, it is the disability to do all the work which he was capable of doing at the time of the accident that is to

¶26

M.F.A.(W.C.C.) NO. 104 OF 2007 -:3:-

¶27

be considered. So the loss of earning capacity has to be assessed on that basis for which medical evidence should be made available. Therefore the order passed by the Compensation Commissioner is incorrect and it requires interference. The question of interest and that liability also need reconsideration in the light of the various decisions of this Court as well as of the Apex Court. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner with a direction to refer the applicant therein to a Medical Board and get the disability assessed, ie. the loss of earning capacity in the light of the factum laid down in 2003 (2) KLT 462 and thereafter permit both sides to adduce evidence and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is directed to issue notice fixing the date of appearance of parties.

¶28

The MFA is disposed of accordingly.

¶29

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶30

ul/-

United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. K.M.Ashok Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co.Ltd v. K.M.Ashok Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sajeev Vs P.Aboobacker

Thankamani Vs Mathai Kuruvila

National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs K.Krishnan

B.Kammadathu Vs a.Gopalakrishna

Prajith,Son of Late Anandhan Vs K.a.Sunil,Raguvaran,New India Assurance

T.Hassankutty Vs P.Kunhimohammed