Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2905 (RAJ)

Shri Plastico v. Aangan Lal

2006-10-16

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant is challenging the award dated 10.4.2006 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby he has granted a compensation to the tune of Rs. 42,646/- in favour of the respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent, Aangan Lal, had filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner. According to the petition, on 19.10.2000 while he was working under the employment of M/s. Plastico Pvt. Ltd., his left hand was caught in the machine. Consequently, the fingers and the palm of the left hand were crushed. Therefore, he has become handicapped in his left hand. At the time of the accident he was 27 years old and was earning a salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. On 24.2.2001 he sent a notice to the employer. However, despite the said notice the employer did not pay any compensation to the respondent. Instead, the appellant replied to the said notice and claimed that the respondent is not his employee. Hence. The respondent had no other option, but to file the said claim petition for a compensation of Rs. 2,30,655/- and for the additional payment of Rs. 40,000/- which were spent by him for his medical treatment. 3. The appellant filed the written statement and claimed that there is no such factory by the name of Plastico Pvt. Ltd. on Plot No. H-137-138. In fact the appellant's firm is known in the name and style of M/s. Shri Plastico and is situated at Plot No. H-138. They further denied the occurrence of any accident on 19.10.2000. They also denied the fact that the respondent was their employee. Thus, according to the appellant, they were not liable to pay any compensation to the respondent. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed four issues. After hearing both the parties and after going through the documentary evidence, vide award dated 20.4.2006, the learned Commissioner granted a compensation of Rs. 42,646/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum in favour of the respondent. Hence, this appeal before this court. 4. Dr. P.C. Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the respondent was not employed with the appellant. According to the respondent-employee he was working at a firm called M/s. Plastico Pvt. Ltd., whereas the name of the appellant firm is M/s. Shri Plastics. Hence, this appeal before this court. 4. Dr. P.C. Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the respondent was not employed with the appellant. According to the respondent-employee he was working at a firm called M/s. Plastico Pvt. Ltd., whereas the name of the appellant firm is M/s. Shri Plastics. Moreover, no firm is situated in Plot No. H-137 as claimed by the respondent in his claim petition. Thus, according to him the relationship of the employer and employee has not been established. And yet, the learned Commissioner has directed the appellant to pay the compensation to the respondent. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned award. 6. Undoubtedly, the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 is a social beneficial piece of legislation. The said Act was enacted for the benefit of the worker. While working a workman runs the risk of being injured or even of being killed. Suddenly, the poor workman is handicapped and looses his capacity to earn. The accident deprives the family of the earnings of the workman and exposes them to financial hardship, if not economic death. In order to protect the workman from the economic vulnerability, the Act was brought into force. Therefore, the provisions of the Act should be applied as liberally as possible. While appreciating the evidence the Court has to be alive of the fact that the unskilled worker is illiterate, is poor, and is inarticulated. Moreover, a case before the learned Commissioner has to be proved on the basis of the probabilities and not beyond a reasonable doubt as is required in criminal law. Therefore, while assessing the evidence, a, hyper-technical or a microscopic view should not be taken. 7. In the present case, the respondent may have failed in giving the correct name of the firm. But nonetheless, it is admitted from both the sides that he did work on Plot No. H-138 where the appellant has his factory. According to the respondent the factory of M/s. Plastico Pvt. Ltd. Is situated on Plot No. H-137-138. According to the appellant the factory of M/s. Shri Plastico Is situated on Plot No. H-138. The slight difference in the name between M/s. Plastico Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shri Plastico Pvt. Ltd. cannot be a valid ground for rejecting the testimony of the appellant. According to the appellant the factory of M/s. Shri Plastico Is situated on Plot No. H-138. The slight difference in the name between M/s. Plastico Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Shri Plastico Pvt. Ltd. cannot be a valid ground for rejecting the testimony of the appellant. Being an illiterate person the claimant may have given an incorrect name, but he has given the correct address as a factory located on plot H-138. Thus, mere insignificant mis-naming of the employer would not entail the denial of compensation under the Act. A hyper-technical view of the evidence would defeat the very purpose of the Act. Moreover, the appellant, who has lost the use of his left hand, would not let go of the real employer and would not falsely implicate the appellant. 8. Furthermore, according to the learned Commissioner, the documents produced by the appellant, namely, the registers, in order to prove that no accident had taken place, the said document neither bore the name of the firm, nor was it proved by the Manager and nor did it contain the year in which the said document was written. Thus, these documents could not be relied upon to conclude that the accident did not take place. 9. Further, the learned Commissioner has concluded that the claimant has suffered disability of only 20% of the left hand. A compensation of Rs. 42,646/- for a disability of 20% is neither too high, nor too unreasonable. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award dated 10.4.2006. 10. In the result, this appeal has no force. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******