Ram Sarup Lohar v. A. B. M. Electricals — 1994 DIGILAW 379 (PAT)

JUDGMENT S. K. Chattopadhyaya, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.2.88 passed by the presiding Officer cum Commissioner under workmens compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Jamshedpur. 2. The facts which are not I dispute are as follows: The applicant - appellant was employed in A. B. M. Electricals Engineering Company and his monthly salary way Rs. 850/- while he was on duty he met with an accident as a result of which he sustained injuries. The only controversy raised on behalf of the respondent before the court below was that after the appellant sustained injury, he was given immediate treatment in the Tata Main Hospital till he became fit for work. 3. The learned court below after considering the evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the factum of treatment as told by the applicant - appellant is correct but, on the other hand, he disbelieved the evidence of the respondent to the effect that the applicant was given treatment at T.M.H. No. paper was called for from T.M.H. to prove the factum of treatment given to the injured appellant. In the absence of any medical evidence the court below relied on the evidence of the applicant and has come to a finding that his right hand did not function in a normal way. He could not stretch right hand completely as it was partially bent. Further, he held that he could hardly pick up a pen kept on the table. The applicant has admitted that he is engaged on monthly salary of Rs. 60/- in the work of washing cup and plates. Having noticed the fact that the applicant is of 48 years of age and he was under the employment of the opposite party, the court below has come to a definite conclusion that the applicant appellant was not able to perform the work for which he was engaged by the respondent no. 1. 4. In his claim petition the applicant appellant has claimed Rs. 800/- as compensation which is the amount for total permanent disablement. The learned presiding Officer after considering the facts and circumstances, has awarded a, sum of Rs. 24.680/- to the applicant by dedicating 60% from Rs. 37800/-. 5. Mrs. 1. 4. In his claim petition the applicant appellant has claimed Rs. 800/- as compensation which is the amount for total permanent disablement. The learned presiding Officer after considering the facts and circumstances, has awarded a, sum of Rs. 24.680/- to the applicant by dedicating 60% from Rs. 37800/-. 5. Mrs. Jaya Roy appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the court below has not calculated the amount of compensation according to the procedure laid down in the Act or the Rules and as such, the amount of compensation given by the Court below should be enhanced. 6. Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 has submitted that as the applicant could not produce any medical evidence showing the extent of injury he sustained the court below has rightly taken a compassionate view by awarding a sum of Rs. 37000 and odd. 7. Section 4 of the Act relates to amount of compensation Section 4 (1) (b) contemplates that where permanent partial disablement results from the injury, the amount of compensation shall be an amount equivalent to 50% of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant fact or an amount of Rs. 24000/-, which ever is more. 8. Similarly clause (c) of Section 4(1) of the Act says that where permanent partial disablement results from the injury, the amount of compensation shall be (1) in case of any injured specified in part (II) of schedule (I) such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of loss of earning capacity caused by that injury. 9. Having noticed he aforesaid provisions of law looking into the schedule (1) of the Act it appears that schedule (I) of the Act is a list of injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement. Part II of schedule I gives the list of injuries deemed to result in permanent disablement. Item (4) of part II of schedule I postulates that 60% of earning capacity will be calculated for loss of hand or the thumb and four fingers or one hand or amputation from 4.5” below tip of oiecranon. Part II of schedule I gives the list of injuries deemed to result in permanent disablement. Item (4) of part II of schedule I postulates that 60% of earning capacity will be calculated for loss of hand or the thumb and four fingers or one hand or amputation from 4.5” below tip of oiecranon. Below schedule I there is a note which says "complete and permanent loss of the use of any limb or member referred to in this schedule shall be deemed to be the equivalent of the loss of that limb or member.” 10. Factors for working out lumpsum equivalent compensation amount in case of permanent disablement and death has been enumerated in schedule IV of the Act. In the case at hand it is the admitted fact that when the accident took place, the applicant was 48 years of age. Items of schedule IV shows that factor 159.80, relates to the age group of 48 years. This is to be multiplied by 50% of the monthly wages of the applicant. It is not in dispute that the monthly salary of the appellant was Rs. 850/- per month when he was working under respondent no. 1 and in such view of the matter 50% of the monthly wages would be Rs. 425/- if this amount of Rs. 425/- is multiplied by 159.80. it comes to Rs. 679150/- and this would be the total amount of compensation which the applicant was to get out of which in view of part II of Schedule I 60% will be paid out of the total amount. After such deduction the total amount would come to Rs. 40749/-. 11. According to the awarded the appellant to get Rs. 24686/- whish, in my opinion, is not a proper calculation and in accordance with law. The appellant is entitled to get Rs. 40740/-. as Stated above. As the learned Presiding Officer has already awarded interest at the rate of 12%, I am not inclined to give any further direction towards the same. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent that in stead of Rs. 24980/- the appellant will get compensation of Rs. 40749/- Mrs. Jaya Roy is not in a position to inform the Court as to whether the appellant has already received the awarded amount Rs. 24680/- or not. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent that in stead of Rs. 24980/- the appellant will get compensation of Rs. 40749/- Mrs. Jaya Roy is not in a position to inform the Court as to whether the appellant has already received the awarded amount Rs. 24680/- or not. In this circumstance, it is ordered that if the appellant has already received the said awarded amount the balance amount must be paid to him with in three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. It is needles to say that this balance amount will also be paid with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% as has been already directed by the tribunal. Appeal allowed.