Introduction

The appellant, Indra Bai, challenged the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 31 October 2022, which had reduced her compensation from ₹3,74,364 to ₹1,49,745.60.
The High Court had reassessed her disability at 40% instead of 100%, as earlier determined by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

Facts of the Case

1. Employment and Accident

   • The appellant was employed as a loading and unloading labourer with M/s. Simplex Concrete Company (Respondent No. 2).

   • She was assigned to work on Truck No. MPF 7567, which was insured by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (Respondent No. 1).

2. Injury Incident

   • On 3 October 2002, while loading poles/pillars onto the truck, the chain pulley broke, causing poles to fall on her left arm.

   • She suffered a compound fracture and nerve damage, resulting in complete loss of grip and immobility in her left hand.

3. Claim and Proceedings

   • The appellant filed a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now the Employee’s Compensation Act).

   • Respondent No. 2 admitted the facts and confirmed that the vehicle was insured.

   • Since no compensation was paid, the appellant approached the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

4. Medical Evidence

   • The District Medical Board certified 50% physical disability and declared her unfit for labour work.

   • Dr. Ravi Shankar Chowdhary confirmed permanent damage, loss of finger movement, and muscle thinning.

5. Commissioner’s Decision

   • The Commissioner held that the appellant had suffered permanent total disablement, as she could no longer perform labour work.

   • Awarded ₹3,74,364 as compensation with interest.

6. High Court’s Interference

   • On appeal by Oriental Insurance Co., the Madhya Pradesh High Court reassessed disability to 40%, reasoning that she could still use her right hand.

   • Consequently, it reduced compensation to ₹1,49,745.60.

Issue of the Case

Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner’s finding of 100% permanent total disablement, despite the appellant being rendered unfit for her original labour work?

Judgment

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment.

• It restored the Commissioner’s award of ₹3,74,364 with interest.

• The Court emphasized that “total disablement” under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, refers to functional disability, i.e., whether the worker can perform the same job as before the accident.

• Since Indra Bai was permanently unfit for loading/unloading work, her disability was rightly treated as 100% permanent total disablement.

• The Court also observed that under Section 30 of the Act, appeals to the High Court lie only on substantial questions of law, not on re-evaluation of evidence.

• Hence, the High Court had no justification to interfere with the Commissioner’s findings.

• No costs were imposed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reducing the disability from 100% to 40%.
The Court reaffirmed that compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act must be based on loss of earning capacity and functional disability, not merely on physical impairment.
Since the appellant was unable to continue her work as a labourer, her condition amounted to permanent total disablement.
Accordingly, the Commissioner’s original award was restored, and the High Court’s decision was set aside.