Fakiragram Rice Mills vs Ramu Indu

Thadani, C.J.—This is an appeal u/s 30, Workmen''s Compensation Act from an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Goalpara, dated 29th November 1949, by which he awarded a sum of Rs. 1,470 to the respondent, on Ramu Indu, a workman within the meaning of the Workmen''s Compensation Act in respect of injuries received by him, which resulted according to the Commissioner, in the loss of his left arm below the elbow and reduced his earning capacity by 50 per cent, in accordance with the schedule attached to the Act.

The respondent was injured in the course of his employment on 22nd May 1949. As a result of serious injuries caused to his hand, he was forthwith removed to the Dhubri Civil Hospital where he was detained for over 2 months; he was discharged from the Hospital on 25th July 1949 : 4 days later he appeared before the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, an ex-officio Commissioner under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, and complained to him that while oiling the mill belonging to the Fakiragram Rice Mills, his left hand was fractured, resulting in his detention in hospital from 22nd May 1949 to 25th July 1949; his daily wages were Rs. 2-5.0 and he had worked continuously for 10 months.

On receiving this complaint which the Commissioner treated as a claim, the Commissioner issued notice to the Mill to show cause why it should not be ordered to pay compensation. One Sri Maidhanda Agarwalla, a partner in the Mill, appeared before the Commissioner and denied liability and contended that as the workman had not filed a formal application he was not entitled to any compensation, that in any case he was a casual workman; his work lay outside the factory, and that he was forbidden to handle any part of the machinery; on 22nd May 1949, the respondent entered the factory building with big wife m order to demonstrate to his wife that he had become a full fledged engineer; in the course of handling the engine, his hand was fractured.

The learned Commissioner came to the conclusion from the evidence that the respondent and his wife both worked in the Mill and had quarters provided for them by the Mill authorities; he held that the respondent was not a casual labourer and that the accident occurred in the performance of his duties as a workman employed by the Mill.

Mr. Sen for the appellant has contended that in this case, the provisions of Section 10 of the Act were not complied with in that no notice of the accident was given as required by the Act. Even so Proviso 2 to Section 10 of the Act lays down that the want of or any defect or irregularity in notice shall not be a bar to the entertainment of a claim if the employer or any one of several employer or any person responsible to the employer for the management of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured workman was employed had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or about the time when it occurred. From the fact that the injured person was removed to the Dhubri Hospital, it is reasonable to suppose that the management of the Mill then knew how the accident had occurred. It also appears from the evidence that after the respondent was discharged from the Hospital, the Manager of the Mill interviewed him. In these circumstances, we do not think the absence of notice can be regarded as a bar to the entertainment of the claim.

Mr. Sen has next contended that the claim itself was not properly made; that a claim under the Act must be made by an application as required by Section 22 of the Act. We do not think a claim is required to be made by an application u/s 22 of the Act, A claim is required to be made u/s 10, and no particular form is prescribed. It is not disputed that the claim in this case was made before the Commissioner within one year of the occurrence of the accident. The application referred to in Section 22 of the Act is an application for the settlement of any, matter by a Commissioner and has no reference to the manner in which the claim for compensation is to be made. Mr. Sen contended that as Sub-section (a) of Section 22 requires particulars to be mentioned in an application within the meaning of Section 22 particulars such as (a), (b) (c) and (d), it must by implication refer to the particulars of the claim. But Section 22 refers in terms to an application for settlement of any matter, that is to say it contemplates an application for settlement after a claim is made u/s 10.

Assuming, however, that Section 22 includes a claim application, Sub-section (3) of Section 22 lays down that if the applicant is illiterate or for any other reason is unable to furnish the required information in writing, the application shall, if the applicant so desires, be prepared under the direction of the Commissioner. It is plain from what has been stated in the order-sheet, dated 29th July 1949, that the learned Commissioner, realising the disability of the respondent, himself wrote out the substance of the claim in his order dated 29th July 1949.

Mr. Sen next contended that it was not the respondent''s job to oil the machinery, that what he did was not only gratuitous but something against the warning of the management. This contention, however, is concluded by the finding of the learned Commissioner that the respondent received the injuries in the course of his employment.

The last point argued by Mr. Sen was as to the amount of compensation which could properly be awarded under the Act, He contended that the injury received by the workman was not one of the injuries listed in schedule I to the Act, that the view of the learned Commissioner that the injury has resulted in the loss of the left arm below the elbow resulting in 50 per cent, loss of earning capacity was erroneous, Mr. Sen has referred us to the evidence of Dr. A. N. Hazarika who has stated:

This forearm has been shortened by about half; the movements of the left wrist and fingers have been impaired, and his gripping power greatly lost: the fingers have become smaller as they cannot be used. The left hand is permanently disabled to perform his usual occupation as a labourer, that is to say, he cannot use the hand in lifting ordinary loads, but he will be able to pick up a pencil or a piece of paper and will be able also to spread paddy in the sun if he is not to lift loads. His hand is permanently deformed and the tip of the middle finger is lost.

From the evidence of Dr. A. N. Hazarika, it is clear that even if the injury is not to be regarded as one of the injuries listed in the schedule resulting in a 50 per cent, loss of earning capacity, the fact that the workman''s hand is permanently deformed and he is unable to carry out his duties as a labourer, means that he has lost the use of the thumb and the 4 fingers of his left hand. For the complete loss of the use of the thumb the percentage of loss of earning capacity is 25%; for the loss of the index finger 10 per cent., and for the loss of any finger other than the index finger, 5 per cent. Adding up these percentages, it comes to the same figure of 50 per cent, loss of earning capacity. We see no reason, therefore, to reduce the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Ram Labhaya, J.

I agree.