There exists a distinction between a ‘total disablement’ and ‘total permanent disablement’ as contained in Schedule I, Part I of the 1923 Act. The sufferance of fracture by itself resulting in shortening of the leg to some extent does not come within the purview of the ‘permanent total disablement’ even under the 1923 Act. It is in that view of the matter, the Tribunal opined :
“For sustaining permanent disability, the identity card issued to disabled person by Board is produced by the Applicant as Ex.P-8. On perusal of the said identity card it is found that in column No. 11 the nature and extent of disability it is not made clear that what kind of disability was found. On the contrary below the next column 40% is written. But for that it is not clearly mentioned that what is 40% and if it is for disability, the kind of disability is not mentioned. In such situation on the basis of Ex. P-8 Identity Card it cannot be held that Identity Card is issued to the applicant for permanent disability. Although original identity card in evidence is acceptable but when regarding permanent disability the position is not clear, in such a case the doctor who have issued the identity card should be produced in evidence. But the applicant has not produce the doctor who have issued the identity card in evidence. [Ramprasad Balmiki Versus Anil Kumar Jain and others AIR 2009 SC 337 ]