Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

No Proof of Earning Capacity Loss Leads to Dismissal of Compensation Claim: High Court Upholds Decision in Workmen's Compensation Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court affirmed the dismissal of a workmen's compensation claim, emphasizing the critical importance of evidential proof in establishing loss of earning capacity.

The court's decision revolved around the application of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The key legal issue was the claimant's failure to adequately prove the extent of loss of earning capacity resulting from his workplace injury.

Facts and Issues: Ishpal, employed as a laborer, sought compensation for injuries sustained at work, claiming a debilitating effect on his ability to earn. However, the initial claim was dismissed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act in Karnal, leading to this appeal. The crux of the issue was proving the actual impact of the injury on the claimant's earning capacity as legally required.

Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta scrutinized the lack of evidence in the claimant's argument, pointing out, "The claimant was required to adduce evidence to establish the extent of the loss of his earning capacity... however, he did not lead even an iota of evidence." The court also observed that despite claiming disability, the appellant continued his employment as a laborer, which undermined his claim of significant loss of earning capacity.

Decision: The High Court found the appellant's arguments insufficient to overturn the previous decision. It was held that the claimant failed to meet the necessary legal threshold to prove a substantial loss in earning capacity due to the injury, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

Date of Decision: March 15, 2024

Ishpal @ Shishpal v. The Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Karnal and another

 

Latest Legal News