Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 595 (MP)

Oriental Insurance Co. v. Maniram

2001-08-14

A.K.MISHRA, BHAWANI SINGH

body2001
JUDGMENT Singh, J. (Oral) -- Through this appeal, award of Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Jabalpur in Claim Case No. 19 of 2000 dated 1.3.2001 has been challenged. Mani Ram (50) was conductor in dumper truck No. MP20-G/1119 owned by M/s. Kishan Lal Gupta. During the course of employment, the truck was parked after unloading the material. All of a sudden, it turned turtle as a result of which Maniram suffered fracture in the upper left arm. He filed claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Jabalpur for Rs. 1,83,708.00 stating that he was 50 year old, employed as conductor with M/s. Kishan Lal Gupta and because of injury, he could not perform duties of conductor as he had been doing before the taking place of the accident. This claim was opposed by the appellant. It is stated that taking place of accident was not attributable to it, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. After recording of evidence, the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the claimant was conductor when the accident took place. He sustained 100% permanent disability due to this accident. He was 50 year old earning Rs. 2,000.00 per month for which the owner is responsible. Consequently, compensation of Rs. 1,83,708.00 has been awarded payable within two months carrying interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 16.3.2000. Appellant is not satisfied with this award, therefore, in has been assai led through this appeal. Shri Samaiya, learned counsel for the appellant contended the finding that the claimant suffered 100% disability is not sustainable therefore, award of compensation on that basis is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel placed reliance on two decisions in 1993(2) TAC 464 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanguli Singh and another) and 2001(1) TAC 446 (SC) (Amar Nath Singh v. M/s. Continental Constructions Limited, New Delhi). Submission is opposed by Shri Chouhan, learned counsel for the claimant, submitting that this is a case of 100% disability, therefore, the conclusion of Commissioner on, this aspect is not liable to be assailed on any ground. Submission is opposed by Shri Chouhan, learned counsel for the claimant, submitting that this is a case of 100% disability, therefore, the conclusion of Commissioner on, this aspect is not liable to be assailed on any ground. Learned counsel brought to our notice the decision of this Court in M.A. No. 2090 of 2000 (National Insurance Company Limited v. Dharmulal Jharia and another) decided on 24.11.2000 wherein this Court has confirmed the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act holding that where the claimant cannot work the way he had been working before the accident, it would be a case of 100% disability. Similar view has been taken by Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and another (1976 ACJ 141). With a view to buttress the view, desirable it would be to go to the evidence in this case. Shri Samaiya, learned counsel for appellant submitted that the claimant has not specifically said that after this accident, he cannot work as conductor. This is not so. If the statement of claimant is read properly, it would be clear that he has stated that he could not work the way he had been doing before. Before the accident, he was working as conductor, therefore, what he means to say is that he cannot work as conductor. This reasoning is further clear from the statement of Dr. C.S. Sharma, Civil Surgeon, Jabalpur. He has stated that due to disability, he found that the claimant could not work at all. In the medical certificate (Exh. P-15), the injuries suffered by the claimant have been described and then the doctor has stated that : "He is unfit for the job of the conductor." This certificate has been issued by Medical Board of three doctors. Therefore, we have no reason to doubt the statement of the doctor and the contents of the certificate. With this background, we are of the view that earning capacity of the claimant has been affected to the extent of 100%, therefore, he is entitled to compensation. The Commissioner has rightly assessed the compensation on this basis and the same is therefore confirmed. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.