Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 80 (CAL)

Tapan Pattanayak v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.

2015-02-02

JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, TAPASH MOOKHERJEE

body2015
JUDGMENT JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA, J. This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against the Judgment and/or Award passed by the Learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, 1st Court, West Bengal in Claim Case No. 29 of 1999 at the instance of the claimant/appellant. The claimant/appellant was a workman under the respondent No.2, a Contractor under the respondent No.1. During the relevant period the workman sustained an accidental injury due to negligence of one of his colleagues causing amputation of four fingers of his right hand except the thumb. Such accident occurred on 10th March, 1998. He was admitted in the Nursing Home where four fingers of his right hand were amputated. The Doctor certified his permanent partial disablement to the extent of 60%. The Medical Certificate of the attending Doctor was admitted in evidence as exhibit 10. Considering the earning of the workman and his age at the time of accident, the Learned Commissioner held that he was entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,19,723/- (Rupees one lakh Nineteen thousand seven hundred and twenty three only) as compensation for his 50% loss of earning capacity. While assessing such compensation, the Learned Commissioner held that the workman used to earn a sum of Rs.60/- per day as his wages and he was 21 years old on the date of such accident. The Learned Commissioner further held that the applicant suffered from permanent partial disablement and he lost his earning capacity to the extent of 50% as per item No.7, part-II of Schedule I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The legality and/or propriety of the said judgment and/or award passed by the Learned Commissioner is under challenge in this appeal before us. Mr. Karar, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that considering the extent of the disablement of the said workman who lost four fingers of his right hand in the said accident, the Learned Commissioner ought to have held that the workman suffered total permanent disablement on account of such accident and as such 100% compensation should have been awarded to him. Apart from this point, he has not argued any other point before us. Let us now consider as to how far the claimant/appellant succeeded in proving that he lost 100% earning capacity due to such accident. Apart from this point, he has not argued any other point before us. Let us now consider as to how far the claimant/appellant succeeded in proving that he lost 100% earning capacity due to such accident. Though he claimed in his claim petition that he lost 100% earning capacity due to amputation of four fingers of his right hand and claimed compensation accordingly, but he has failed to establish such claim in his evidence. In fact, he was absolutely silent about the loss of his 100% earning capacity while giving evidence in the said proceeding. In his cross-examination, he stated that after the said accident, he did not resume his duties due to his disability. He has neither stated in his evidence that he became incapable of doing any work under his employer nor he has stated that he approached his employer for allowing him to resume his duties but he was denied. On the contrary, we find that his employer in his evidence stated that it undertook before the Labour Commissioner, Haldia for giving a job to the appellant, which he will be able to discharge. The employer was not cross-examined by the workman in this respect. Nor even a suggestion was given to him as to the correctness of such claim of the employer. In the aforesaid set of facts, we are unable to hold that the workman lost 100% earning capacity due to such accident. As per schedule prescribed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the extent of permanent partial disablement of the workman can be assessed as 50%. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the Learned Commissioner was absolutely justified in holding that the workman lost 50% earning capacity due to amputation of four fingers of his right hand. We thus, do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. We hold that the Learned Commissioner was absolutely justified in assessing the awarded compensation by accepting his earning as Rs.60/- per day and his age as 21 years at the time of such accident. The impugned judgment and/or award does not require any interference. The appeal thus, fails. The judgment and/or award of the Learned Commissioner is affirmed. We direct the respondent No.1 viz. The impugned judgment and/or award does not require any interference. The appeal thus, fails. The judgment and/or award of the Learned Commissioner is affirmed. We direct the respondent No.1 viz. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited to pay the awarded compensation together with interest as per the impugned award by way of deposit in the Bank Account of the claimant/appellant within two weeks from the date of furnishing of the particulars of the claimant’s Bank Account with the respondent No.1.