MOHAMMED KOYA Vs. BALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S.30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 called 'the Act' hereinafter, is directed against an order awarding compensation to the workman. The appellant is the employer; the respondent, the workman. On 5-6-1976, while operating a circle saw, the workman sustained an injury, in the course of his employment, as a result of which he lost some fingers. The appellant was present at the time of the accident. So, says his son, witness No. 1 for the opposite party. A claim was made for compensation. Eventually, compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,560/- was awarded in accordance with S.4 of the Act and, Schedule.1, thereof.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant, assailed the order on several grounds, based on questions of fact and law. The former, we are not inclined to accept, because the findings entered by the Authority below, are based on cogent evidence, and the appreciation of the evidence is not perverse. An appeal under S.30 of the Act is limited to substantial questions of law involved in the appeal; this court is not a court of appeal on facts. The contours of S.30 are well defined.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant challenged the award contending that there was no notice under S.10 of the Act. The evidence of the witness for the opposite party clearly shows that the opposite party had notice of the accident. Notice is not a matter of form, but substance. Neither the Act, nor the Rules prescribe any form of notice. On the other hand, S.4(1)(b) of the Act states that want of notice or any defect or irregularity in notice shall not be a bar to the entertainment of a claim, if the employer had knowledge of the accident. This, he had. The contention must therefore fail.