Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 301 (JK)

Divisional Manager v. Bashir Ahmed

2002-09-23

B.L.BHAT

body2002
This appeal is directed against the award dated 29.5.2002 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner exercising powers under the Workmens Compensation Act, Doda whereby he come to award compensation of Rs. 55, 302/- to the respondent-claimant. 2. It appears that the respondents namely, Bashir Ahmed approached the Commissioner below under the Workmens compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as an Act ) for grant of compensation alleging therein that during the course of his employment under the appellant that on 17.7.1994 while working as a Sawyer at forest compartment No. 21, Jai he met with an accident as a result of which left leg got fractured and also sustained injuries on the other parts of the body as a result of which he is rendered permanently disabled for all the works he has stated his age at the time of accident as 35 years and as per the statement he was earning Rs. 1500/- per month. He also claims that at the time of accident, the employees of the appellant-non-applicant were present despite that he was not paid any compensation. The appellant-non-applicant appears to have resisted this petition by filing its objections and the parties went to the trial with the following issues :- "1. Whether the injury has resulted in temporary, permanent, partial disablement or full disablement? OPP 2. What are the wages and age of the applicant? OPP 3. Relief, if any. ? Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The impugned award is assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant in appeal on various grounds, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has stressed the ground that the award is passed on no evidence submitting that the evidence of medical witness examined by the respondent is not upto the standard who has estimated reduction in the earning capacity of the applicant when he could make his statement with respect to the percentage of disablement suffered by the workman/applicant and the percentage of loss of earning capacity could only be established by the workman by adducing other evidence. 4. With respect to the argument, there is issue No. 1 on the file and it is infact the finding of this issue which is assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant before this court during the course of his argument. 4. With respect to the argument, there is issue No. 1 on the file and it is infact the finding of this issue which is assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant before this court during the course of his argument. It is pursuant to the application u/s 4 of Act filed by the respondent-applicant that on 17.7.1994 while working as a Sawyer for the appellant in Forest compartment No. 21 at village Jai, he met with an accident as a result of which his left leg got fractured and also sustained injuries on other parts of the body. 5. The workmens compensation Act is a social security legislation and must be interpreted to advance the object of the legislation. It is, therefore, observed that a workman cannot be refused cmpensation because of the technicalities pointed out in his aplication for compensation or in the conduct of this case before the commissioner. perusal of file reveals that the respondent in the bid to substantiate his case and to discharge the burden of proof of this issue beside himself, has examined Mohd.Ismail, Mohd.Shafi and Doctor Zia Showkat, Assistant Surgeon. The appellant-non-applicant has also examined Dewan Chand, Field Assistant State Forest Corporation, Bhaderwah in rebuttal. The respondent-applicant while supporting his case has deposed that during the course of his employment under the non-applicant in Forest compartment No. 21, Jai on 17.7.1994 he met with an accident and was rendered permanently disabled. PWs Mohd. Ismail and Mohd. Shafi have corroborated his evidence while deposing in one voice that respondent-applicant met with an accident while working under the appellant-applicant as a result of which his left leg got injured. Evidence of Dr.Zia Showkat has also corroborated the evidence of applicant-respondent by deposing that the fibulla of the left leg of the applicant-respondent has fractured as a result of which bone at the site of fracture has become very weak inspite of his healing because of there is restriction in the free movement of the leg. He has estimated the reduction in the earning capacity of the applicant at 30% and has stated that his age is 40 years. This evidence of the applicant and his witnesses stand corroborated by Mr.Dewan Chand, Field Assistant working under the appellant. He has estimated the reduction in the earning capacity of the applicant at 30% and has stated that his age is 40 years. This evidence of the applicant and his witnesses stand corroborated by Mr.Dewan Chand, Field Assistant working under the appellant. He also in his evidence deposed that the applicant met with an accident on 17.7.1994 as a result of which he sustained serious injuries on his left leg. However, from this evidence of the applicant, it is proved that on 17.7.1994 the applicant-respondent was engaged by the appellant as a Sawyer in Forest compartment No. 21 at Jai where he met with an accident as a result of which his left leg got fractured. It is also proved that the respondent was being paid as 50/- per day as wages. Dr. Zia showkat has examined the respondent, his status as qualified medical practitioner is not challenged by the appellant who has assessed the loss of working capacity of the respondent-applicant at 30% and on the basis of that there is restriction in the free movement of his leg. 6. Because of this disablement which is not covered under Schedule-I and II of the workmens compensation Act, the respondent can do light manual work for which he can in all circumstances get less wages. As indicated as the medical evidence has assessed reduction of working capacity of the respondent to the extent of 30% and Commissioner below while recording the impugned award cannot be said to have fellen in error in taking into consideration this evidence of this witness in assessing for himself the loss of capacity of work of the respondent- workman. The appellant has not assailed quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner below. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.