Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 270 (UTT)

Raghunath Singh v. Sri Muneer Hasan

2008-06-25

B.C.KANDPAL

body2008
JUDGMENT : This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act has been filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 31-03-2000 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner in Workmen Compensation Case No.6 of 1998, Raghunath Singh Vs. Muneer Singh & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/claimant was working as a driver in bus No. UP 08/2977 under the employment of respondent No.1 - Sri Muneer Hasan. On 03-09-1997, he was going from Dobata to Tehri at about 08:00 a.m. on the backside Quality Control Rook, due to steering failure, the said bus met with an accident. In this accident spinal code of the driver was broken. He was admitted in the Nursing Home, Dehradun where he has spent Rs. 41,000/- on his medical treatment. Therefore, the claimant filed the claim petition of Rs. 2,25,170/- as compensation. 3. Thereafter, the notices were issued to the parties. The opposite parties contested the petition by filing their separate written statements. Both the parties denied the allegations made in the petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner framed relevant issues, which were discussed at a great detail. 4. Learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties directed that a sum of Rs. 36,000/- be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner in the impugned judgment and award has further directed that, since a sum of Rs. 20,000/- has been given to the claimant by its employer, therefore, the claimant is entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs. 16,000/- from the Insurance Company. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Sri A.M. Saklani, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the record. 7. As far as the amount of compensation granted in favour of the claimant is concerned, I am of the view that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner after assessing the material available on record has rightly calculated the amount of compensation and the same does not require any interference. The finding recorded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner that out of the total awarded amount a sum of Rs. The finding recorded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner that out of the total awarded amount a sum of Rs. 20,000/-• is to be deducted for the reason that the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- was given to the claimant by his employer. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner has ignored this aspect that the employer had given that amount of Rs. 20,000/- to his employee/workman for the medical treatment. The claim petition clearly reveals that the claimant has made a specific averment therein that he was given Rs. 20,000/by his employer for the medical treatment. This amount was not liable to be deducted from the amount of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant in view of the provision laid down in sub-section 2 of Section 4 of the Act, which reads as under : "Section 4 (2) ............ Explanation: Any payment or allowance which the workman has received from the employer towards his medical treatment shall not be deemed to be a payment or allowance received by him by way of compensation within the meaning of clause (a) of the proviso." 8. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is quite clear that in case, if the Workmen has received any sum from his employer towards the medical treatment that shall not be reckoned in the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimants. I am thus, therefore, of the view that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner has committed an illegality in ignoring the aforesaid provision of law. The amount of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- included by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner towards the total amount of compensation is not liable to stand in the eye of law. 9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is modified upto the extend that the claimant is entitled for the sum of Rs. 36,000/- as compensation instead of Rs. 16,000/- as has been awarded by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner.