B.S. MURTHY & Ors. Vs. A. RAVINDER SINGH & Ors.

CITATION	AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 886
DATE OF JUDGMENT	10th February 2021
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Nawal Kishore Sharma
RESPONDENT	Union of India & ors
BENCH	Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy

INTRODUCTION

Nawal Kishore Sharma ( seaman) joined his duty after conducting a successful medical examination under the Sea Corporation of India (SCI). during the course of employment, he was diagnosed with a heart ailment and declared unfit for the job. Consequently, the shipping department of the government of India canceled his registration as a seaman. Nawal Kishore Sharma claimed disability compensation under article 21 of the National Maritime Board agreement. In response, SCI argued that his condition was not due to any injury on the vessel hence is only eligible for severance compensation.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In February 2009, the appellant was found fit in a medical test by marine medical services 
2. Thereafter, on 29 September 2009 an agreement for employment of seafarers was executed for appellant off-shore duty. When the appellant reported sickness i.e. cough, abdominal pain, swelling in leg, and difficulty in breathing he was required to undergo medical treatment at Adani, Mundra port, and was subsequently has to be hospitalized.
3. He was diagnosed with cardiomyopathy(heart muscle disease) and was declared unfit for the service by a certificate dated 18 March 2011 issued by the corporation’s assistant medical officer. 
4. Thereafter, the shipping department of the government of India, Mumbai issued an order dated 12 April 2011 cancelling the registration of the appellant as a seaman. 
5. Appellant sent many letters for his claims and compensation as per terms of contract.
6. On 7 October 2011 respondent communicated vide letter stating that the appellant was only entitled to severance compensation of Rs. 2,75,000/- which was offered but was not accepted by the appellant. 

ISSUES RAISED

1. The central issue was whether dilated cardiomyopathy comes under the ambit of disability under the National Maritime Board agreement.
2. Whether there was an injury in clause 5.9.F of agreement?
3.  The matter in question was that the appellant is applicable for compensation under clause 21(disability compensation). 
4.  The court also interpreted the definition of disability under Right of person with disabilities act, 2016.

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALING

1. The Appellant contended that he was entitled to 100% disability compensation under clause 21 of the National Maritime Board agreement.
2. It was stated that dilated cardiomyopathy should be considered as internal injury as it occurred during the course of employment as covered by the agreement.
3. Clause 5.9.F(ii) which mentions ‘ a rating on being medically unfit for sea service at seas as a result of injury whilst in employment” as the appellant was declared fit for service before joining and this occurred during the course of employment, hence should be covered under the clause.
4. According to the appellant’s counsel, the term “injury” should encompass anything that impairing the appellant’s health.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. The shipping corporation of India (SCI), the respondent stated that Sharma’s case was not due to accidental injury during duty on the vessel. 
2. Ailment can not be considered an injury during the course of employment as it is not caused due to any activity related to the job. therefore appellant can not claim disability compensation.
3. SCI argued that the appellant was capable of performing other types of work and his day-to-day activity are not affected hence can not be considered as disable. Therefore should only be payable for severance compensation.
4. They also asserted that clause 25( which applies to cases of person declared medically unfit for sea service ) was more relevant than clause 21 in this situation. 

JUDGEMENT 

1.  Bench said that in absence of clear and compelling reasons a writ cannot be exercised under Article 226 of the constitution. According to clause ( 2) high court can only issue a writ against a person outside its territorial jurisdiction only when the cause arises partially under its jurisdiction. 
2. the court held that dilated cardiomyopathy can not be called as a legal disability under the Right to a Person with disabilities act, 2016. There is nothing to establish a direct connection between Sharma’s work and his ailment led to the denial of disability compensation. 
3. The Supreme Court upheld the respondent’s argument, denying disability compensation to Nawal Kishore Sharma due to the nature of his heart and his heart ailment.

ANALYSIS

1. For Article 226(2) of the Constitution, “cause of action” should have the same meaning as under Section 20(c) of the C.P.C., defined as the necessary bundle of facts the plaintiff must prove in a suit. Whether a cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of any High Court must be considered in light of the proceedings’ nature and character under Article 226 of the Constitution. To maintain a writ petition, the petitioner must prove that a legal right claimed has been infringed within the Court’s jurisdiction.
2. In this case, the Patna High Court determined that no part of the cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction when the petitioner received a letter denying disability compensation. The court also noted there was no established link between the seaman’s on-ship duty and his medical condition. According to Clause 5.9. F (ii) of the National Maritime Board Agreement, 100% compensation is payable to a seaman found medically unfit for sea service due to an injury sustained while in employment. However, it was not claimed that the appellant had suffered any accidental injury during his sea service. The court rejected the appellant’s broad interpretation of “injury” as anything diminishing a seaman’s health status, stating that such an interpretation would disregard the agreement’s specific terms. Consequently, the Bench dismissed the appeal, concluding that, without a connection between the job and the medical condition, the disability compensation was not justified.

CONCLUSION

This case delves into the question of disability and injury. Whether dilated cardiomyopathy qualified as a disability under the agreement. the court held that a heart ailment does not fall within the definition of disability as per the Rights of Persons with disabilities act 2016. It emphasized that the legislature’s choice of words in defining ‘disability’ should not be expanded beyond its scope.

The court affirmed the SCI decision stating that there is no established connection between the appellant’s work and his heart ailment. Employers cannot be held liable for injuries arising solely from natural wear and tear of an employee’s body. 

REFERENCES

1. SCC
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28589431/
3. https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/nawal-kishore-sharma-vs-uoi-disability-compensation-cannot-be-awarded-unless-there-is-a-link-between-the-job-and-the-medical-condition-5086.asp

This Article is written by ASTHA SINGH student of USLLS (GGSIPU) ; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.