Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1272 (RAJ)

Maheshwari Oil Industries v. Shri Ramdev

2001-08-16

H.R.PANWAR

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th February, 1992 passed by learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), whereby he granted the compensation of Rs. 51827/- in favour of the respondent and against the appellants. Aggrieved by the judgment impugned, the appellant employer has filed this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that; the respondent was an employee of the appellant employer. During the course of employment on 16.12.1985 while respondent was on night duty, he was greasing the Girari of the machine, in the process of greasing, he met with an accident with the machine and his all the four fingers and the thumb of right hand came into the machine and was crushed which ultimately resulted in the amputation of all the four fingers and the thumb of the right hand. The respondent by application dated 16.12.1986 filed before the learned Commissioner prayed for grant of compensation under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against Shri Rameshwar Lal Chandak as proprietor of the appellant firm. On 5.1.1987, the said Rameshwar Lal denied the liability on the ground that he is neither a partner nor the proprietor of the appellant firm. Vide order dated 16.09.1987, the learned Commissioner granted the compensation. However, an application was moved by the appellant before the Commissioner on 29.10.1987 stating therein that Rameshwar Lal Chandak is neither partner nor the proprietor of the said Oil Mill and requested for setting aside of the judgment dated 16.09.1987. The Commissioner vide its order set aside the exparte order. The respondent filed an amended claim petition on 4.6.1988 against the appellant claiming compensation for sum of Rs. 75,000/-. It was averred that he is 20 years and is in the employment of the appellants employer, his monthly income is rs. 420/-. On 12.10.1988, the appellants....... employee of the filed their written statement stating therein that on 16.12.1985 one Arjun Ram oilman who was in the employment of the appellants, was greasing the running machine in the establishment. However, it was admitted that the respondent was in their employment on the date of accident but he was not assigned the duty which he performed in the course of employment. 3. A plea of limitation was also raised. However, it was admitted that the respondent was in their employment on the date of accident but he was not assigned the duty which he performed in the course of employment. 3. A plea of limitation was also raised. Respondent produced discharge certificate of the General Hospital Ex.W-1A showing his admission to General Hospital from 16.12.1985 to 5.1.1986. Ex.W-2A is the certificate which was issued by Medical Jurist. In this certificate, the injuries sustained by the respondent were mentioned. Certificate Ex.W-3A issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bhadana showing the date of birth of respondent as 23.10.1965. The respondent was examined by the Medical Board vide Ex.W-4. The Medical Board assessed following functional loss "1. Amputation Right Thumb at the level of terminal phalanx-25% 2. Amputation of Right Index at level of Base of Proxinal Phalanx-20% 3. Amputation Right Middle Finger at the base of Proxinal Phalanx-15% 4. Amputation of Ring Finger at the level of Base Prox Phalanx- 10% 5. Amputation of Right little finger at level of I.P. Joint-5%" 4. Total functional loss 75% Right hand. These injuries resulted in impairment disability, he lost his earning capacity by 75% of his right hand. Respondent himself examined as P.W. 1 and tendered aforesaid documents in evidence and produced Dr. Sawai Singh, Sarpanch as P.W. 2 who has proved the date of birth of the respondent. P.W. 3 Dr. Badri Lal Choudhary who proved Ex.W-4 as he was one of the Members of the Medical Board. He stated that the injuries sustained by the respondent resulted in loss of earning capacity to the extent of 75%. In rebutal, Shri N.D. Chandak, partner of the appellant's firm appeared as D.W. 1. He stated that applicant was employed as a labour whose work was to remove the oil cake with iron rod and put it into the godown and that grease is given in the machine by grease gun to the running machine. He stated that for the purpose of greasing the running machine, one Arjun Ram D.W. 2 was assigned the duty as oil man. D.W. 2 Arjun Ram who was also in the employment of the appellant on the relevant date of accident was on duty working in the oil mill as Oil Man and Mistry. He stated that for the purpose of greasing the running machine, one Arjun Ram D.W. 2 was assigned the duty as oil man. D.W. 2 Arjun Ram who was also in the employment of the appellant on the relevant date of accident was on duty working in the oil mill as Oil Man and Mistry. He stated that the work assigned to the respondent was to remove the oil cake and his work was not to put oil or grease in the machine. The learned Commissioner on appreciation of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the respondent was working with the appellant in the oil mill owned by them on 16.12.1985 and on 16.12.1985 at about 8.00 p.m. when respondent was greasing the machine, his right hand was entangled in the Girari (wheel) which resulted into the amputation of his four fingers and thumb of the right hand. Thus, the learned Commissioner held that the said accident arose while respondent workman was in the course of the employment of the appellants and as such injuries resulted out of its employment and held the appellant liable for the payment of compensation under section 3 of the Act. The Commissioner computed the compensation under section 3 of the Act for a sum of Rs. 28,224/-. The Commissioner further awarded the interest at the rate of 6% per annum under section 4-A(1) and (2) of the Act for the period from 15.1.1986 to 27.2.1992 which comes to Rs. 8,890.56 as per provisions of Section 4-A(3) of the Act. The Commissioner further reached to conclusion that the compensation became payable within 30 days from the date of accident and the appellant without any reason, neither paid the compensation to the respondent nor deposited before the Commissioner and therefore, under section 4- A(3) of the Act, imposed the penalty of Rs. 14,112/-. Commissioner also came to the conclusion that there was no justified reason for delay in making the payment or depositing the same in the court and hence, the penalty of 50% of compensation was imposed. 14,112/-. Commissioner also came to the conclusion that there was no justified reason for delay in making the payment or depositing the same in the court and hence, the penalty of 50% of compensation was imposed. While deciding the plea of limitation raised by the appellant, the learned Commissioner held that originally the claim petition was filed by the respondent well in time of limitation which was subsequently amended on having come to know the real names of partners of the firm and therefore, he was prosecuting the claim petition under a bonafide belief. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner condoned the delay and granted aforesaid compensation. 5. While, admitting this appeal, no substantial, question of law was framed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. From the statements of respondent P.W. 1, it has been fully established that he sustained injuries on his right hand which ultimately resulted in amputation of four fingers and thumb of right hand during the course of employment. It has also been established that the appellant was his employer, this fact has also not been disputed by the employer. Before the learned Commissioner, one of the partners Shri N.D. Chandak D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 Arjun Ram who is an employee of the appellant oil mill appeared as witnesses. On the relevant date of accident, D.W. 2 Arjun Ram too was on duty in the night along with respondent and from the statement of the respondent as well as of the witness of the appellant coupled with various documents Ex.A-1 to A-4, it is fully established that the respondent sustained amputation injury and is entitled for compensation as per section 3 of the Act. It has also been established that on account of injuries sustained by the respondent on 16.12.1985, compensation fell due to be paid by the employer. It has been established that respondent became entitled for compensation and appellant employer defaulted in paying the compensation due within one month from the date it fell due and, therefore, the Commissioner was justified in imposing the penalty as aforesaid. The interest granted by the Commissioner at the rate of 6% as noticed above, is also according to law. The appellant employer is legally liable for the payment of interest. The interest granted by the Commissioner at the rate of 6% as noticed above, is also according to law. The appellant employer is legally liable for the payment of interest. None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant comes in purview of substantial question of law. Computation of compensation, penalty and interest are purely question of facts. However, the contention raised by the appellant with regard to the claim being barred by limitation is concerned, in my considered opinion, the discretion vests in the Commissioner to condone the delay and discretion exercised by the Commissioner in condoning the delay in filing the claim petition cannot be said to be erroneous. The provisions of Act are socially beneficial legislation and the claim of the poor workman cannot be defeated on technical plea of limitation. I find no reason to take a different view than one taken by the Commissioner. No other point was pressed. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******