1) Partial disability under the code of social security is listed in Section 2 (55) which is defined as

“Permanent Partial disablement”. It states that when disablement is of permanent nature it will
reduce the earning capacity of an employee/individual across all the employment which he
could have worked on when he was absolutely fine.
The list of injuries that can result in permanent partial disablement is mentioned in Part II of
Fourth Schedule of the code. Few examples are listed below

 Loss of three fingers in one hand- 30% less earning capacity.

 Amputation of both feet resulting in end bearing stumps 9% less earning capacity.
 Loss of one eye with other being normal-40% less earning capacity

Total disability under the code of social security is listed in Section 2 (56) which is defined as “Permanent
Total disablement”. It states that when disablement is of permanent nature,. And inability of a
employee/individual for all the work he could have performed before or at the time of accident that
resulted in disablement.

The list of injuries that can result in permanent total disablement is mentioned in Part I of Fourth
Schedule of the code. Few examples are listed below:

 Loss of both hands or amputation at higher sites.-100%

 Absolute deafness-100%

Adding to the above context this should be noted that any combination of injuries specified in Part II of
which result in loss of earning capacity to 100 percent will also be considered as “Permanent total
disability”

2) It is “NOT” possible for the competent authority under the Chapter VII of Code,2020 to asses the
loss of earning capacity without or in – disregard of the assessment of a qualified medical
practitioner.
But if there is any dispute by one of the parties in the assessment done by a qualified medical
practitioner ,the competent authority is capable to pronounce same if material by way of
assessment of another qualified medical practitioner, and the said should be accepted by
competent authority, depends on the loss of earning capacity and nature and extent of the
disablement. Earlier assessment of the medical practitioner disputed by the parties can be
disregarded.

The case of United India insurance Co.Ltd.v.Sethu Madhavan (1992), the loss of earning
capacity has to be assessed by a qualified medical practitioner, it is not correct to say that it
cannot be subject to scrutiny by the Commissioner who solely as per the provisions of the Act
has the jurisdiction to asses the allotment of the compensation.
 The case of New India Assurance Company Ltd v, Bharat Yadav, the calculation was done by
the commissioner without taking the reports of the qualified medical practitioner. The court
rejected this calculation and the reward was set aside.

The case of Shivalinga Shivanagowda Patil v. Erappa Bapssapa Bhavihalam, it was declared by
the court that it is not open to commissioner to say that he has to follow what the qualified
medical practitioner has assessed. The assessment done byqm qualified medical practitioner is
the expert proof given to commissioner to determine the amount of compensation which the
commissioner should handle. As mentioned earlier , if the accuracy of the assessment is
disputed by any party, the Commissioner is bound to pronounce his decision on the same which
should be in the disagreement with the assessment made by the qualified medical practitioner
only if the proof on record is enough.

3) In such cases Where neither the Workman nor his employer has produced any medical evidence
to show the extent of loss of earning capacity resulting from the injury sustained by the former,
section 84 of the act empowers the competent authority to get injured workmen examined at
anytime by a qualified medical practitioner and also can assist the nature an extent off
disablement as well as the loss of earning capacity on the basis of such assessment to he
furnished by the qualified medical practitioner. In the case of Shivalinga Shivanagowda Patil v.
Erappa Bapssapa Bhavihalam commissioner cannot decide the compensation with the
assessment of qualified medical practitioner. The court was of the opinion that if the report by
the qualified medical practitioner is said disputed by Off the party then in that case the
commissioner can make his own assessment with help from the report and if in case the parties
comes up with enough proofs then in that case the assessment is to be done by the
commissioner.

4) The loss of earning capacity can be determined with the reference of the work which the
Workman was performing or capable of performing at the time of accident.

Section 2 (55) Specifically mentions (….Which he was capable of undertaking at the time of the
accidentaccident)

Section 2 (56) specifically metions (… which he capable of performing at the time of accident)

The case of Punambhai khodabhai Parmar v. G.Kenel.Construction (1984),Permanent total disablement

has to be judged from the job t concerned person was doing. In this case the driver was injured and
became inefficient for work of a driver. As all his right side fingers, right elbow and right thigh was
injured he cannot drive with left arm. This results in Permanent total disablement and not partial.

The case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata (1976), in this case the left arm above the
elbow was amputated for the carpenter who fell of while doing his work. As a result could not continue
his work as a carpenter, the Supreme Court held this case as a Permanent total disablement as the job
of a carpenter cannot be performed with one hand.
The case of Divisional Manager,KSRTC v. Bhimaih, Bhimaih was in service of KSRTC, one of the front
wheel of the vehicle broke which resulted in accident. Bhiamaih Sustained injury in his left hand which
resulted in an impairment all free movement of his left hand as a result he could not drive anymore. His
case was that the injuries sustained by him was a permanent total disablement.

The case of New India Insurance Company v.Subhas (2004) , the court observed that if the employer
finds the employee fit enough to do some other work and continues the employment period, it cannot
be considered as total disablement but only partial disablement. if the workman gives evidence that he
is incapable of performing any work along with the proof of his termination from his services, it is
permissible for the commissioner to give him total disablement.with

5)
 Section 76(1)(b)of the code - Compensation for permanent total disablement
 Section 76(1)(c)(i) of the code- Permanent partial disablement resulting from injury
specified in Part schedule of the Fourth schedule.

Any injury that has been specified in Part II of Schedule IV that falls under Section 76(1)(c)(i), the
competent authority can determine the compensation awardable under Section (76)(1)(b) of the Act
only if the evidences are independent and acceptable and establishes a case that the injury sustained
will result in permanent total disablement and not permanent partial disablement.