MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD., MANDYA Vs. C. MARIYACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides. This appeal was taken up for hearing principally because the respondent's learned Advocate pointed out that his client who was a workman with the Company had sustained an injury in the year 1990 and the Authority constituted under the Workmen's Compensation Act awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,923.00. The Company who is the appellant has deposited certain amounts with the Authority but the respondent's learned Advocate submitted that by virtue of the interim order, that his client has not been able to withdraw the amount.

(2.) THE only point that has been urged in this appeal is that having regard to the accepted position that the applicant was a Watchman, that he was supposed to have been chasing a thief, some wire nail entered his heel as a result of which he sustained a fall and injured himself, whether the compensation awarded was commensurate with the injuries sustained by him and whatever other incidental loss it was supposed to compensate him for. Learned Advocate raised two points, the first one being that the Company pointed out that there is a degree of contributory negligence on the part of the workman because he had been supplied a uniform and shoes and that on the date in question, he was using neither of them. The contention is that had the footwear ™s been used, that the incident itself could have been avoided. More importantly, the learned Advocate submitted that the Authority was not bound to mechanically accept the evaluation of the doctor from the Mandya hospital who stated that the handicap was of the order of 10% when the Company has led evidence of its own Medical Practitioner who states that he examined the workman and found that there was no handicap or impairment when he resumed his work. In this background, the learned Advocate submitted that at the very highest the Court would have to assess as to what would be the reasonable compensation for the injuries that have been sustained all of which he categories as minor ones, and the incidental factors like pain and suffering etc. He points out that the first aid was given by the Company doctor, that the respondent was treated at the Mandya hospital and that no evidence has been produced of any expenditure incurred. He states that there was no loss of earning to the workman who has resumed his work thereafter and in this background, he submitted that the quantum is required to be drastically scaled down.

(3.) THE truth of the matter lies between two extremes. I need to specifically observe here that the whole purpose of setting up forums for awarding compensation is in order to judicially assess the extent of damage or injury that has taken place and the compensation is intended to be a retribution for the loss that has been so suffered. These forums will always have to guard against the situations where attempts are made to exaggerate the injuries particularly against situations where all sorts of grounds and pleas are put forward to justify the incident being used as a ground for exaggeration or for getting far more than what is justly due. Again, there is a sympathy aspect and this cannot and should not be allowed to be exploited because misplaced sympathy is something that the law has to guard against. This Court has come across, times without number indiscriminate compensation being awarded which bears no relation whatsoever to what the law entitles. In the present case, the respondent's learned Advocate submitted that the amount of Rs. 10,923.00 is a meagre amount and that on this ground alone, a Court should refuse to interfere. That argument does not really appeal to me because the real question is as to whether the injuries and the facts of the case justify the award of the amount that will have to be paid to him which is the essential principle involved in all such cases. On a careful assessment of the material that I am inclined to accept the plea put forward on behalf of the appellants that the compensation awarded will have to be scaled down. To my mind, on a overall assessment of the nature of injuries and all other factors taken into consideration, the amount of compensation if fairly computed could not have been more than Rs. 7,000/ -. Even in doing so, this Court is making a rough appraisal on the basis of what to my mind is a very generous view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The order passed by the Authority is accordingly modified and the quantum of compensation stands reduced to Rs. 7,000/ -. The interest payable at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the application would be payable to the respondent who is entitled to receive the same.