Amit Agrawal vs Mohini Bai And Ors

P. Sam Koshy, J

Present is an appeal filed by the owner under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 assailing the award dated 06/08/2012 passed by

the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 121/W.C.A./COC-1-B/08 (Non- Fatal).

The facts of the case in brief is that, the appellant is an owner of stone crusher plant located at Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.). The respondent

No.1/claimant was a worker engaged at the said crusher plant by the appellant. In the course of operation of the said crusher plant, the respondent

No.1 sustained injuries on 06/06/2008. As a result of the said injuries, the claimant got her left hand amputed from elbow so also she has sustained

fracture injuries on her right hand. She was immediately hospitalized and she continued to remain in hospital for treatment till 18/07/2008 i.e. for almost

about 1 and ½ month. The District Medical Board issued the disability certificate to the respondent No.1 certifying that, she has suffered permanent

disability of 75%.

The claimant subsequently filed the claim application before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation which was registered as a claim case No.

121/W.C.A./COC-1-B/08 (Non-Fatal). The learned Commissioner vide the impugned award dated 06/08/2012 has allowed the same and have

ordered that, the claimant shall be entitled for a compensation of Rs.4,26,510/- with interest @ 10% per annum. While passing the impugned award,

the learned Commissioner has also imposed penalty of 25% quantified at Rs.1,06,628/-.

The contention of the counsel for the appellant/owner is that, the assessment of compensation at 100% by the learned Commissioner is erroneous

and is contrary to the schedule provided under the Act and therefore the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves for suitable modification. He

further submits that, no sufficient evidence is available on record so far as the loss of earning capacity is concerned. What is also under challenge is

the fact that, the doctor was not examined to ascertain the disability part particularly the functional disability which resulted in the loss of earning

capacity and thus prayed for interfering with the impugned award.

Per contra, the counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant submits that, all the contentions put forth by the counsel for the appellant are all question

of facts and that the appeal under Section 30 can never be entertained in case if there are no substantial question of law. The finding of facts cannot

be disturbed by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act. He further submits that, the evidence which

have come on record clearly establishes the employment and the injury part. It also stands proved that, the accident occurred at the premises of the

present appellant and thus in the given circumstances, the finding of the learned Commissioner be upheld and prayed for the rejection of the appeal.

Perusal of record would show that, the claimant in support of her claim application has led an evidence of herself and further she has examined one

Mangluram - the husband of the claimant and also an eye-witness who is a co-worker namely Kamla Bai - AW/3. There is not much which has been

extracted from the cross-examination of these three persons with which the accident, the employment or the nature of injury could have been doubted

at.

Further, what is also undisputed is the fact that, the appellant herein is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 287, 338 of IPC.

Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, the fact that the crusher plant was owned by the appellant and that the accident occurred on 06/06/2008 stands

fully established.

Now question as to the percentage of disability which the claimant has suffered is concerned, true it is that the provision of employees

compensation act in schedule 1 part 2 Sr.No.4 specifically provides that, the percentage of loss of earning capacity under such injuries would be 60%.

At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata

& Anr. [1976 1 SCC 289] wherein in paragraph 5, it has been held as under:-

The expression ""total disablement "" has been defined in Section 2(1)(l) of the Act as follows:

(1) ""total disablement "" means such disablement whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates workman for all work which he was

capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement. It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such as nature

as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for

all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his finding as

follows:

The injured workman in this case is carpenter by profession............By loss of the left hand above the elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for

the work of carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only. This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding.

The said judgment has further been reiterated in a series of decisions subsequently.

From the ratio which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, if we take into consideration the facts of the present

case, the claimant in the instant case was a lady, aged around 30 years at the time of accident. As a result of the accident, she suffered the injury of

amputation of her left hand from elbow. The claimant also had suffered fracture injury on her left leg. Further, it has been specifically stated in her

deposition that, subsequent to the accident, she has not been able to perform any work which she was able to do prior to the accident and she has

being rendered jobless and she is facing difficulties in meeting both ends meet. Similar statement has also been made by her husband in his evidence

who has also in a very categorical terms stated that, by virtue of the accident, she has lost her employment and thereafter she has not been able to

obtain work. There does not appear to be any cross-examination on this aspect.

From the aforesaid evidence what clearly reflects is that, the claimant in the instant case has lost her employment as a result of the accident which

definitely can be brought within the ambit of total disablement or total loss of earning capacity.

Therefore, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the counsel for the appellant/owner calling for an interference with the impugned

award both on the question of quantum of compensation or on the aspect of the interest and penalty part.

The appeal thus being devoid of merits deserve to be and is accordingly rejected.