Suresh Paswan Versus M/s. Kla Construction Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

Suresh Paswan Versus M/s. Kla Construction Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6523 OF 2022

Suresh Paswan …Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s. Kla Construction

Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in First Appeal

No. 511 of 2016, by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal

preferred by the respondent – employer and has set aside the order

passed by the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarding

compensation of Rs.3,74,364/- to the appellant herein, the injured

employee has preferred the present appeal.

1

2. That the appellant filed an application for compensation before the

Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. It was the case on behalf of

the appellant that while he was working at the construction site under the

respondent-employer, he fell down from the roof of the first floor and

suffered grievous injuries, which resulted in 60% permanent disability.

The appellant relied upon the disability certificate dated 13.09.2009

issued by Dr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer,

Gardiner Road Hospital, Patna certifying that the appellant sustained

60% disability, which was as a result of the accident. It appears that the

respondent – employer disputed the disability certificate dated

13.09.2009 as well as his disability as assessed 60% under the said

disability certificate. The learned Commissioner, Employees’

Compensation awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,74,364/- towards the

compensation taking the permanent disability of the appellant as 60%.

2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the

Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation awarding Rs. 3,74,364/-

towards the compensation considering the permanent disability of the

appellant as 60%, the respondent – employer preferred appeal before

the High Court. Before the High Court, an application was submitted by

the employer to constitute a Medical Board to examine the permanent

disability of the appellant. By order dated 21.03.2017, the High Court

2

directed the Medical Superintendent of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital

to constitute a Medical Board to examine the disability of the appellant.

The Medical Board submitted the report dated 09.11.2017 and according

to the said report the appellant did not suffer any permanent disability.

Therefore, the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has

allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 herein and

has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Employees’

Compensation. Hence, the present appeal is at the instance of the

original claimant – employee.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at

length. We have also gone through and considered the earlier disability

certificate dated 13.09.2009 relied upon by the claimant as well as the

learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation as well as the report

dated 09.11.2017 of the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order

passed by the High Court dated 21.03.2017. It is true that the Medical

Board in its report dated 09.11.2017 has opined that the appellant has

not suffered any permanent disability. However, at the same time, it is

required to be noted that the disability certificate issued by Dr. Umesh

Kumar Singh, Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, Gardiner Road

Hospital, Patna was of the year 2009 and the Medical Board constituted

pursuant to the order passed by the High Court examined the injured

employee after a period of approximately nine years from the date of

3

accident. At the relevant time, the employer did not make any

application before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation to

constitute a Medical Board and the injured be examined by the Medical

Board. The employer ought to have made such a request before the

Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation at the earliest opportunity. Be

that as it may, considering the fact that the appellant did suffer the

injuries due to fall and at the relevant time, it affected his 60% earning

capacity, it may not be that nothing was to be awarded to the appellant –

injured employee by way of compensation.

4. It is reported that pursuant to the earlier order passed by the High

Court, out of total sum of Rs. 7,52,471/- deposited by the respondent,

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, we are

of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to Rs. 3,76,236/- by way of

compensation with interest, which the appellant has already withdrawn, it

shall meet the ends of justice.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present

appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by

the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. It is directed that the

appellant is entitled to a total sum of Rs.3,76,236/- towards

compensation with interest for the disability suffered by him, which the

4

appellant has already withdrawn earlier. Therefore, the aforesaid

amount of Rs. 3,76,236/- withdrawn by the appellant be treated as full

and final settlement of the claim of the appellant towards compensation

with interest for the disability suffered by him. The balance amount lying

in deposit with the High Court/Commissioner may be withdrawn by the

respondent/employer, if not withdrawn so far.

Present appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above.

………………………………….J.

 [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]

5