Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Esic v. Nawab Hussain - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 1282 of 1991 [2006] RD-AH 11024 (6 July 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 24

First Appeal From Order No. 1282 of 1991

Employees State Insurance Corporation.......  Appellant.


Nawab Hussain  son of Nabban Bux,

( Ins. No. 21/1464056 ) R/o 133 /424,

  Dhaknapurwa, Kanpur ........Respondent/


Hon'ble  Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.

(1) It is now 24 years since the  employee at Kanpur on 23.11.1983, sustained an employment injury in his left eye resulting in diminution  of the vision   and has still not been granted compensation.

(2) It is not in dispute that the respondent-worker  during the hours of his employment , suffered  an injury in his left eye. The Eye Surgeon to whom the worker was referred,  examined his eye in L.L.R. Hospital Kanpur  (Government Hospital)  found that there was 6/36 loss of vision in the left eye as a result of that injury. The respondent worker was thereafter referred to the Medical Board for determination of question of disability but the Medical Board was of the opinion that there was no disability in his eye due to that  injury  in consequence whereof,  there was also no loss of his earning capacity , provisionally or finally.

(3) The respondent worker, challenged this  decision of the Board  by filing the appeal as provided in Section 54-A  of Employees' State Insurance Act,1948  and the E.S.I. Court reverse the view  of the Medical Board, placing reliance on the report of the Eye specialist and held that the employment injury suffered by the respondent-worker fell within the purview of Entry No.32 of the IInd Schedule of the  E.S.I. Act and that the respondent worker was entitled to 30% loss of earning capacity.

(4) This is how, the appellant E.S.I. Corporation  has come up in appeal before this Court.

(5) Counsel for the parties have been heard.

(6) The E.S.I. Court  relied upon the  report of the Eye Surgeon  of the L.L.R hospital, Kanpur, which has mentioned 6/36  damage of vision in the left eye and on the basis thereof granted relief to the respondent-worker. The contention from the side of the appellant-corporation is that the Medical Board  did not find any diminution of vision  and the view of the Medical Board must be deemed to be final and should over ride the finding  of the eye specialist of the L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur.  

(7) The Act provides for appeal against  the decision of the Medical Board  even directly to the E.S.I. Court under Section 54-A of the Act. It is, therefore, for the Court  to determine whether there was such injury to the worker which entitled to relief under the provisions of the Act. The Court, obviously, cannot  have any material before it except the reports of the doctor, who examined the worker. In the  instant case, the worker was examined initially  by an Eye Surgeon at L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur and doctor found  at the time of examination, the vision of his left eye 6/36  while the vision of the other eye was 6/9 , opining  that the diminution  of vision was due to the injury. The Trial  Court relied on the  findings of the eye specialist of L.L.R. hospital, Kanpur  in preference to the view of the Medical Board.

(8) In the circumstances as they are, there seems no sufficient reason to differ from the view taken by the E.S.I.  Trial court which has relied on the findings and the report of the Eye specialist and has mentioned clear  reasons to differ with the report of the Medical Board.  There is no reason to assume that the eye specialist of L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur  who examined  the worker-respondent gave a report for extra medical considerations. In the instant case, therefore, it seems just and proper to endorse the findings of the learned E.S.I. Court.

(9) It is unfortunate that an appeal in the matter was filed by the E.S.I. Corporation. It is hoped that in future, they will  take more humane view.

(10) The appeal is dismissed with costs which are fixed at Rs. 5000/-.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.