ESI CORPORATION Vs. LEELA UNNIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decision in I.C. No. 3 of 2009 on the file of the Employees Insurance Court, Palakkad is under challenge in this appeal. The Employees State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for short) is the appellant. The respondent was an employee in an establishment covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). On 13.2.2008, she sustained injury in an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment and as a result, she lost four fingers of her right hand. The Corporation accepted the injury sustained by the respondent as an 'employment injury' and referred her to the Medical Board for assessment of the loss of earning capacity. The Medical Board assessed the loss of earning capacity of the respondent at 50 per cent. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the respondent approached the Insurance Court in the proceedings referred to above. The Insurance Court, on an appraisal of the materials on record and the law on the point, found that the loss of earning capacity suffered by the respondent was 100 per cent and directed the Corporation to disburse her the consequential benefits. The corporation is aggrieved by the said decision of the Insurance Court.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the injury sustained by the respondent is an injury included in the list of injuries mentioned in Part II of the Second Schedule of the Act for which the percentage of loss of earning capacity is prescribed statutorily at 50 per cent, the Insurance Court was not justified in enhancing the said percentage of loss of earning capacity. According to the learned counsel, as far as employees who sustained injuries specified in the Second Schedule are concerned, permanent total disablement could be found only when the injury is an injury specified in Part I of the Second Schedule or when the employee suffers a combination of injuries specified in Part II of the Second Schedule where the aggregate percentage of the loss of earning capacity as specified therein against those injuries amounts to 100 per cent or more. The said argument is raised based on the proviso to S. 2(15B) of the Act.