HRISHIKESH ROY,J. - (1.) The appellant challenges the judgement dated 26.03.2019 in the Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3160/2012, whereunder, the High Court of Judicature at Patna had rejected the seaman's Claim for disability compensation[under clause 21 of the National Maritime Board Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement")] and thereby endorsed the order dated 07.10.2011 (Annexure P21) of the Shipping Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'SCI' for short).According to the SCI, the appellant's was not a case of accidental injury during duty on the vessel and therefore, only severance compensation is payable to the appellant. This is because the Seaman is capable of performing other kinds of job and his day-to-day normal work is not affected.
(2.) The appellant was earlier registered in the SCI's offshore fleet service but at the relevant time he was released at his own request with effect from 19.08.1996 and transferred to the SCI's foreign going seaman's roster, with fresh registration. Those in seaman's roster category, are engaged on contract, specific for the sea going vessel. The appellant joined as a crew on the foreign going vessel on 18.09.2009 and he was discharged on 18.06.2010 with the declaration of being permanently unfit for sea service, due to Dilated Cardiomyopathy.
(3.) On the above facts, Mr. V. Chidambresh, the learned Senior Counsel argues that seaman is entitled to 100% disability compensation under Clause 21 of the Agreement. According to the Senior Counsel, Dilated Cardiomyopathy or heart's reduced blood pumping capacity, should be understood as an internal injury covered by Clause 5.9.F (ii) of the Agreement which speaks of "A rating on being medically unfit for sea service at seas as a result of injury whilst in employment". The term "injury", according to the counsel should cover anything impairing the health of the appellant. Mr. Chidambresh argues that injury need not be manifested externally or blood oozing kind but should also cover an impaired heart. The appellant's counsel relies on an article on Marine Safety, by Mr. Dilipan Thomas and also the writings of Mr. Markas Ollie Barker to argue that cardio vascular disease is one of the several occupational diseases about which, the seafarers have been cautioned by the authors. The failure by the SCI to accommodate the seaman in an alternative job(suitable for the appellant's medical condition) is next contended to be in contravention of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as" the Disability Act").;