Bakshish Singh vs Paramjit Singh and others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The appellant filed an application u/s 10 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act before the Commissioner. The claim having been rejected, he has filed the present appeal. A few facts may be noticed.

The appellant claims that he was employed by the respondents for working at their farm at a wage of Rs. 300/- per mensem. Besides the salary, the respondents had also agreed to pay Rs. 100/- per month for meals. Thus, he was to get total monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 400/-. On May 14, 1976 the appellant was working at the thresher. While pushing the fagot of wheat-chaff his hand (sic) chopped off with the blades. He was taken to the hospital and ultimately it was amputated upto the wrist. The appellant approached the Commissioner with a prayer for the award of Rs. 7,560/- as lump sum compensation. Having filed this petition in August 1976 the appellant moved for permission to amend the petition in view of the fact that the provision of the Act had been amended in the year 1976. By amending the petition the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs. 16,140/- Vide order dated May 7, 1977 the prayer for amendment was allowed by the Court on payment of Rs. 15/- as costs.

The respondent denied the claim in totality. They pleaded that the appellant had not joined service with them. According to the respondents the appellant was working with one Swaran Singh on a daily wage Rs. 10/- for threshing wheat. After he had finished with the wheat of Swaran Singh, he had started thrashing his own wheat sheaves, which he had acquired by cutting the crop in the neighbourhood, with the thresher of Swaran Singh on payment. Since the appellant is addicted to taking capsules and other intoxicants, he had taken capsules and was under the spell and intoxication of capsules. The accident was caused to the applicant while in undue haste in his bid to finish the threshing of his wheat sheaves and under the spell and intoxication of capsules during the threshing carried on by him".

On the pleadings of the parties the Commissioner framed the following issues :-

Whether the applicant was employed by the respondent on monthly wages of Rs. 400/- as alleged by him ?

Whether the applicant suffered injury during the course of and in the employment of the respondent as alleged by him ?

To what amount the applicant is entitled by way of compensation ?

Relief.

On examination of the evidence the Commissioner held that "it is not possible to hold that the applicant suffered the injury in question while employed the respondents". As a result, issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided against the appellant. Hence this appeal.

Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that the findings recorded by the Commissioner are contrary to the evidence on record. Still further, he states that the appellant is present in Court. His left hand is amputated below the wrist. Thus, the view taken by the Commissioner cannot be sustained.

The appellant was examined by Dr. M. S. Kang Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana. The medical report given by Dr. Kang is on record as exhibit A-9. This reads as under :-

" ..... Office of the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana.

No./GM/76 dated, Ludhiana, July 15, 1976

Certified that I have examined Bakshish Singh, s/o Lal Singh, r/o Village Saffipura, P.O. Sidhwanbet Teh. Jagraon, District Ludhiana today. His left hand is amputated from wrist joint. There is permanent loss to the extent of 60% (Scheduled) (sixty per cent).

Sd/- Sd/- Bakshish Singh Civil, Surgeon, Ludhiana P. C. M. S. (I) Civil Surgeon Ludhiana."

This certificate was admittedly issued by Dr. M. S. Kang. It was not disputed before the Commissioner that the certificate bears the signatures of the appellants. Despite this the, Commissioner has taken the view that "from the cross-examination of Dr. Kang, it is evident that the injury described in the Certificate is not the one which was suffered by the applicant. That goes to show that the injury of the applicant was never medically examined by any I medical practitioner and there is nothing on record with this Court to find out as to what is the extent of the injury".

Luckily, for the appellant, Dr. Kang had appeared as a witness. It is, undoubtedly, true that the witness did say that the hand of the petitioner who is present in Court, is not amputated from wrist joint, rather, it is amputated from carpometacarpal joints. As 2 per record, this injury is entirely different from that which is described above." It appears that it was a vague attempt on the part of the witness to help the respondents. Firstly, in the examination in chief he had categorically admitted to have examined Bakhshish Singh s/o Lal Singh on July 15, 1976. It was stated by him that "his left hand was amputated from wrist joint. There is permanent loss to the extent of 60% (Scheduled)". The witness had gone on to state that Exhibit A-9 is the Certificate issued by him. He had admitted his signatures and also asserted the correctness of the Certificate given by him. He had admitted to have "obtained the signatures of the person whom I had examined". Once the Certificate is found to have been singed by the claimant and the witness had asserted the correctness of the certificate, the minor variation introduced by the witness for describing the extent of injury could not be interpreted to mean that he had not appeared before "Dr. Kang for his examination". Apparently, the claimant''s hand is cut below the wrist. He has suffered a handicap. It is nobody''s case that some other person by the name of Bakhshish Singh s/o Lal Singh had suffered the injury. It appears that the Commissioner did not correctly appreciate the evidence of PW-3 Dr. M. S. Kang. Still further even the respondents themselves in the written statement had not even remotely suggested that the claimant had not suffered any injury. Their only case was that he was not employed with them and that he was used to consuming intoxicants. It was as a result of the capsules etc. that he had tried to hurry up and his hand had got caught in the thresher of Swaran Singh. This fact was not proved during the course of evidence. Still further, when the appellant had appeared as AW-1, it was not suggested to him that he had not suffered the injury on his hand as alleged by him in the claim petition.

This is a case where the injury speaks for itself. The appellant had apparently no reason to leave out Swaran Singh if he had actually suffered the injury at his thresher. It has not been shown that he had any grouse against the respondents so as to falsely raise a claim against them.

On a consideration of the evidence, the conclusion recorded by the Commissioner cannot be sustained.

Resultantly, the order passed by the Commissioner is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellant has suffered a permanent loss of one hand besides the mental torture and the handicap. His earning capacity has been considerably reduced. There is no reason to deny him the paltry sum of Rs. 16,140/- as claimed by him. He would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment. It was a fit case for the award of costs. Since no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent to contest the claim, there will be no order regarding costs.