HAYAT SINGH Vs. V.S. PATIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to certificate dated 16.03.2004, issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Pithoragarh, physical disability of the claimant Hayat Singh was assessed at 52%. It was certified that the claimant Hayat Singh had 52% permanent physical impairment in relation to his body and weakness (both lower limbs). Taking into account 52% permanent physical impairment of the claimant, learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation granted compensation of Rs. 1,38,764/ - along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum to the claimant. Oriental Insurance Company was directed to pay the aforesaid sum along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of presentation of the application till the date of payment. In other words, the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Pithoragarh, was accepted, in its entirety, by learned Commissioner while passing the impugned award.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant made an attempt to show that the claimant had 90% permanent disability, which is contrary to the evidence on record. It cannot be said, as argued by learned counsel for the appellant, that the claimant suffered 'total disablement'. The expression 'total disablement' is defined in Section 2(i)(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, as follows:

(3.) IT appears to be a reasonable and correct finding. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to assail it on any ground and it does not require to be corrected in this appeal. There is, therefore, no justification to enhance the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.