DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER(MANAGER)versusGANPATBHAI BATABHAI BAROT SINCE DECEASED THRO LEGAL HEIRS

      C/FA/1388/2012                                   ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1388 of 2012

==========================================================
             DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER(MANAGER)
                           Versus
GANPATBHAI BATABHAI BAROT SINCE DECEASED THRO LEGAL HEIRS
                          & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARDIK C RAWAL(719) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.3,1.4,1.5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.6
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                               Date : 09/04/2026

                                   ORDER


1.     By way of this First Appeal               led u/s 30 of the Workman
Compensation Act, 1923, the appellant has prayed to quash
and set aside judgment and award dated 12.8.2011 passed by
the learned Workman Commissioner, Himmatnagar in WC
Non Fatal Application No.17 of 1997, whereby the appellant
was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.4,06,656/- with 12%
interest from the date of the application till realization and
25% of accident compensation being Rs.1,01,664/- by way of
penalty.


2.     Brief facts of the case are as under:-


2.1    The deceased workman Ganpatbhai was serving as
driver with the appellant Corporation and on 18-12-1995 the
bus met with an accident by dashing with a standing truck

                                   Page 1 of 8
       C/FA/1388/2012                                        ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026




while going from Himmatnagar depot to Dedhrota. The
deceased workman su7ered grievous injury and was admitted
in the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad from 18-12-1995 upto 18-7-
1996 and his both legs were cut.


2.2     The original claimants has                   led aforestated WC Non
Fetal Application No. 17 of 1997 before the learned Workman
Commissioner, which was allowed.


2.3     Hence, present First Appeal.


3.      Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik Rawal for the
appellant. Respondent Nos.1.1, 1.2 and 1.6 have expired and
they are survived by remaining respondents, but they have
chosen not to contest the proceedings though they have been
served with advocate notice.


4.      Referring        to    the    order      dated       11.5.2012,        learned
advocate Mr. Rawal would submit that while admitting the
First Appeal, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has given due
weightage to the case of the deceased, who was driver of the ST
corporation and also prima facie held that assessment of 100%
disability is erroneous and upon such finding, the Coordinate
Bench of this Court has disbursed 50% of the total amount
deposited.


5.      Having heard learned advocate Mr. Rawal, at the outset,
the uncontroverted fact was that the deceased was driver of S.T.
bus,     dashed         with   a     standing        truck   while      going          from
Himmatnagar depot to Dedhrota and lost his two legs. The

                                       Page 2 of 8
     C/FA/1388/2012                           ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026




medical certi cate assessed disability in tune of 50%, but the
learned Workman Commissioner considered the fact that the
deceased being driver after losing two legs, could not work.


6.    What requires to be assessed about functional disability
that the learned Workman Commissioner has decided 100%
functional disability.      Giving job of light work out of
humanitarian approach may not compensate the functional
disability which the claimant su7ered to the tune of 100%.
The law has been well established by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 of
course on jurisdiction of MV Act, but a corollary can be drawn
there from.


7.    Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of R.Halle
Versus Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2026
INSC 260 taken assistance from the judgment of Raj Kumar
(supra)      and emphasized to assess the functional disability
instead of physical disability. Relevant para 27 to 31 reads as
under:-

           “27. This Court, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar,
           (2011) 1 SCC 343 has authoritatively laid down the
           principles governing assessment of permanent and
           functional disability for the purpose of awarding
           compensation. It has been held that the percentage of
           permanent disability assessed by a medical expert
           cannot be mechanically equated with the percentage
           of loss of earning capacity. What is required to be
           determined is the actual impact of such disability on
           the earning capacity of the injured, having regard to
           his avocation, age and the nature of work performed.
           The Tribunal is required to undertake a structured
           analysis to ascertain the activities the claimant can or


                               Page 3 of 8
C/FA/1388/2012                           ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026




      cannot perform post-injury, the nature of his
      profession prior to the accident, and whether the
      disability has resulted in total incapacity or merely
      restricted or reduced earning capacity. For ready
      reference, the relevant extracts from the said
      judgment are reproduced hereinbelow: -

      9. The percentage of permanent disability is
      expressed by the doctors with reference to the whole
      body, or more often than not, with reference to a
      particular limb. When a disability certi(cate states
      that the injured has su)ered permanent disability to
      an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the
      same as 45% permanent disability with reference to
      the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or
      part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage
      of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be
      assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole
      body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right
      hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does
      not mean that the extent of permanent disability with
      reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus
      60%). If di)erent parts of the body have su)ered
      di)erent percentages of disabilities, the sum total
      thereof expressed in terms of the permanent
      disability with reference to the whole body cannot
      obviously exceed 100%.

      10. Where the claimant su ers a permanent
      disability as a result of injuries, the assessment
      of compensation under the head of loss of future
      earnings would depend upon the e ect and
      impact of such permanent disability on his
      earning capacity. The Tribunal should not
      mechanically apply the percentage of permanent
      disability as the percentage of economic loss or
      loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases,
      the percentage of economic loss, that is, the
      percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising
      from a permanent disability will be di erent
      from the percentage of permanent disability.
      Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all
      cases, a particular extent (percentage) of


                          Page 4 of 8
C/FA/1388/2012                        ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026




      permanent    disability  would    result  in   a
      corresponding loss of earning capacity, and
      consequently, if the evidence produced show
      45% as the permanent disability, will hold that
      there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In
      most of the cases, equating the extent
      (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the
      extent (percentage) of permanent disability will
      result in award of either too low or too high a
      compensation.

      11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal
      is the e ect of the permanent disability on the
      earning capacity of the injured; and after
      assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms
      of a percentage of the income, it has to be
      quanti/ed in terms of money, to arrive at the
      future loss of earnings (by applying the standard
      multiplier method used to determine loss of
      dependency . We may however note that in some
      cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment,
      the Tribunal may (nd that the percentage of loss of
      earning capacity as a result of the permanent
      disability, is approximately the same as the
      percentage of permanent disability in which case, of
      course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage
      for determination of compensation. (See for example,
      the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra
      v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC
      254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258: (2010) 10 Scale
      298] and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance
      Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
      1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567]

      13. Ascertainment of the e ect of the permanent
      disability on the actual earning capacity involves
      three steps. The Tribunal has to /rst ascertain
      what activities the claimant could carry on in
      spite of the permanent disability and what he
      could not do as a result of the permanent
      disability (this is also relevant for awarding
      compensation under the head of loss of
      amenities of life). The second step is to


                        Page 5 of 8
C/FA/1388/2012                            ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026




      ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of
      work before the accident, as also his age. The
      third step is to /nd out whether (i) the claimant
      is totally disabled from earning any kind of
      livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the
      permanent disability, the claimant could still
      e ectively carry on the activities and functions,
      which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether
      he was prevented or restricted from discharging
      his previous activities and functions, but could
      carry on some other or lesser scale of activities
      and functions so that he continues to earn or
      can continue to earn his livelihood.

                                  [Emphasis supplied]

      28. In view of the principles laid down by this Court
      in Raj Kumar (supra), as consistently a)irmed
      thereafter, the assessment of functional disability
      must be grounded in a realistic appraisal of the
      impact of the injury on the claimants capacity to earn.
      The inquiry is not con(ned to the numerical
      percentage of physical impairment certi(ed by the
      Medical Board, but extends to evaluating whether the
      claimant, in light of his educational background, skill
      set and nature of employment, is capable of
      meaningfully pursue his avocation.


      29. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the
      appellant-claimant was admittedly employed as a
      Manager in a private concern, a role inherently
      dependent upon sustained cognitive functioning,
      including memory retention, analytical ability,
      executive decision-making, coordination and e)ective
      communication. The neuropsychological report on
      record evidences severe impairment in verbal and
      visual memory, frontal lobe dysfunction, and an IQ
      score of 65 placing him within the category of Mild
      Intellectual Disability.


      30. Further, the Medical Board has recorded that the
      injuries resulted not only in cognitive impairment but

                         Page 6 of 8
     C/FA/1388/2012                           ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026




           also in partial blindness and orthopedic limitations
           a)ecting mobility and stability. When these physical
           and neurological impairments are cumulatively
           evaluated, it becomes manifest that the appellant-
           claimants ability to e)ectively discharge his pre-
           accident duties stands substantially and irreversibly
           impaired. The evidence does not indicate a mere
           diminution in e)iciency, rather, it demonstrates a
           profound erosion of the faculties essential for gainful
           employment in his chosen (eld. These impairments
           strike at the core competencies indispensable for the
           e)ective discharge of managerial responsibilities and
           substantially undermine the appellant-claimants
           ability to perform the essential functions inherent in
           such a position. In such circumstances, and bearing
           in mind the settled principle that functional disability
           must re>ect the actual loss of earning capacity, we
           are persuaded to hold that the disability in the
           present case, for the purpose of computation of
           compensation, deserves to be reckoned at 100%. It is
           beyond the pale of doubt that, having su)ered such
           grave medical and neurological impairments, the
           appellant-claimant would neither be considered
           suitable for the managerial post nor would he be
           capable of e)ectively discharging the onerous
           responsibilities attached to the said post, particularly
           in light of his present condition, which is likely to
           deteriorate progressively over time.


           31. Consequently, in light of the foregoing discussion
           and considering that the functional disability su)ered
           by the appellant-claimant is to be assessed at 100%
           for the purpose of computing loss of earning capacity,
           the compensation payable to the appellant-claimant
           warrants re-determination so as to ensure the award
           of just and fair compensation in accordance with law.
           “


8.    In view of above, according to this Court, the learned
Workman Commissioner has not committed any error much
less an error of understanding the law and fact.              The       rst


                               Page 7 of 8
                 C/FA/1388/2012                                                           ORDER DATED: 09/04/2026




        blush order dated 11.5.2012 would not come in the way of this
        Court to hold that the learned Workman Commissioner has
        rightly assessed 100% disability to a driver, who has lost his
        two legs in an accident.                                Hence, this Court                        nds that no
        substantial question of law is involved in the matter.


        9.         Resultantly,              present First                   Appeal           fails      and stands
        dismissed.


        10.        The learned Workman Commissioner is directed to
        disburse the remaining amount of compensation deposited by
        the appellant to the claimants after due veri cation and
        identi cation along with interest and after verifying their
        right to claim the compensation.


        11.        Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to
        the concerned Court forthwith.




                                                                                                        (J. C. DOSHI,J)
        SHEKHAR P. BARVE



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 09/04/2026 17:50:01




                                                              Page 8 of 8