MYSORE SUGAR COMPANY LTD 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 footwares 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 respondent's learned Advocate has vehemently opposed any interference with the order because he submits that the Authority has very rightly held that the assessment of the doctor who treated the workman prevails over the opinion of the Company doctor who has merely stated that when he came back to work, he was fit to do so and does not appear to be handicapped in any manner. There may be some justification in the submission canvassed by the respondent's learned Advocate when he states that the opinion of the doctor who treated the workman would be of higher value particularly since the Company doctor does not specifically depose that he had analysed the case and done a careful examination of the patient before coming to the conclusion. Irrespective of these two opinions however, the respondent's learned Advocate advanced a strong submission that the respondent sustained injuries, he was hospitalised for a month and that from this alone, the Court would have to conclude that the injuries were not superficial and that some aftereffects which have been assessed at 10% were in fact there.