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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर