Seaman’s Disability Compensation Claim Rejected: Supreme Court Analysis

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors., addressing the issue of disability compensation for a seaman under the National Maritime Board Agreement. The case revolved around whether a heart condition, diagnosed after service on a foreign-going vessel, constituted an ‘injury’ within the meaning of Clause 5.9.F(ii) of the agreement, warranting 100% disability compensation.

The appellant, Nawal Kishore Sharma, contested the rejection of his disability compensation claim by the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI). The SCI argued that the medical condition—Dilated Cardiomyopathy—was not an accidental injury sustained during employment but rather a general health issue. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner’s senior counsel, Mr. V. Chidambresh, contended that Clause 21 of the Agreement entitled the appellant to full disability compensation. He argued that the term ‘injury’ should be broadly interpreted to include internal impairments such as heart conditions. He relied on literature discussing cardiovascular risks in seafarers and invoked Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, stating that the employer failed to accommodate the appellant in an alternative job suitable to his condition.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-rules-on-membership-induction-and-governance-in-educational-society/

Respondent’s Arguments

On behalf of the SCI, Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri countered that the seaman did not suffer an accidental injury while on duty and that disability compensation was restricted to such cases. He emphasized that Clause 5.9.F(ii) covered only injuries sustained during employment and that the petitioner’s condition did not meet this criterion. The SCI also pointed out that the petitioner was fit for general employment despite his heart condition and was, therefore, only eligible for severance compensation under Clause 25.

Additional arguments were presented by the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Viramjit Banerjee, who stressed that there was no causal link between the appellant’s medical condition and his work on the vessel.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The bench, comprising Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari, and Hrishikesh Roy, meticulously analyzed the agreement and the presented arguments. The Court noted that:

• Clause 5.9.F(ii) requires that the seaman be rendered unfit due to an injury sustained while in employment.
• The appellant did not suffer any identifiable accidental injury during his service on the vessel.
• Medical literature cited by the appellant only highlighted general health risks for seafarers and did not establish a direct causal link between the appellant’s condition and his employment.
• Under Clause 25, severance compensation was available for seamen declared permanently unfit for sea service, and this was the appropriate provision applicable to the appellant.

Key Judicial Pronouncements

The Supreme Court examined previous rulings in similar cases. In Divisional Controller, NEKRTC vs. Sangamma and Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rita Fernandez, the Court had awarded compensation where there was clear evidence of health impairment due to employment. However, in the present case, there was no recorded incident of an injury during service.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/property-dispute-and-injunction-rights-a-subramanian-vs-r-pannerselvam/

Disability Act Considerations

The appellant’s reliance on the Disability Act was also examined. The Court observed that neither the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 nor the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 classified Dilated Cardiomyopathy as a disability warranting special protection. Consequently, the appellant’s claim under Section 47 of the 1995 Act was dismissed.

Final Judgment

The Court upheld the decision of the High Court and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant was not entitled to 100% disability compensation but was eligible for severance compensation under Clause 25. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that contractual agreements between employers and employees must be interpreted based on their clear terms and that broad interpretations should not override explicit provisions.

This judgment is a landmark in clarifying seafarers’ compensation entitlements, emphasizing the necessity of proving direct causation between an injury and employment duties.

Petitioner Name: Nawal Kishore Sharma.
Respondent Name: Union of India and Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Place Of Incident: Foreign-going vessel.
Judgment Date: 10-02-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: nawal-kishore-sharma-vs-union-of-india-and-o-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-10-02-2021.pdf