In a recent landmark decision, the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Shipping Corporation of India Limited challenging a Workmen’s Compensation award under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The judgment, dated 13.02.1996, had directed the employer to pay compensation to the deceased claimant and had become a subject of legal scrutiny.
The case involved a claim for compensation by Mr. Dasu M. Kutty, a seaman (Deck Sarang), who had served with the Shipping Corporation of India Limited since 1958. Mr. Kutty suffered chest pain while on duty in 1991, eventually leading to his declaration of medical unfitness for sea services after undergoing bypass surgery. The claimant contended that the heart disease resulted from the strenuous nature of his maritime duties, seeking compensation under the National Maritime Board Agreement.The employer contested the claim, arguing that there was no accident during the course of employment, denying the severity of the claimant’s duties and disputing the permanent nature of the disability. The employer further challenged the penalty and the applicability of the N.M.B. Agreement to the case. The court analyzed the evidence, including the claimant’s admission of being fit for work and the employer’s contention that the injury did not fall under Schedule-I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (provides a comprehensive list of injuries for which compensation is payable to a worker who sustains injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. This schedule outlines various types of injuries and the corresponding compensation amounts payable to the injured worker or their dependents in case of death.). However, the court rejected these arguments, emphasizing the specific circumstances of the case. The court observed that the claimant’s desire to continue working did not negate the fact of his declared medical unfitness for seaman duties. It highlighted the 100% disability as interpreted in Clause-21 of the National Maritime Board. (Agreement is a specific provision that pertains to compensation for permanent disability suffered by seamen.). Agreement and noted that the claimant’s inability to continue in the same line of work justified the compensation. Distinguishing the case from precedent (Naval Kishore Sharma), the court found that Mr. Kutty had a long history of service and had reported chest pain during duty. The absence of the ship’s logbook and the employer’s failure to controvert specific claims further supported the court’s decision.
The court upheld the penalty and interest imposed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, citing statutory provisions. It concluded that the appeal lacked merit, and there was no substantial question of law involved.
This judgment serves as a significant precedent affirming the rights of maritime workers to compensation for work-related injuries, especially in cases of long-serving employees facing health issues due to the nature of their duties. The decision reinforces the importance of considering individual circumstances in assessing claims and underscores the responsibility of employers to adhere to statutory provisions regarding compensation and penalties.
CASE NAME: Shipping Corporation of India Limited, V. Mr. Dasu M. Kutty
NAME: NIDHI SHYAM SINGH, BBA.LLB (H), SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE, INTERN UNDER 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.
0 Comments