(1.) By this Appeal under Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ("Act" for short, hereinafter), the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) and Ex-Offico Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, at Nadiad, on 30-7-1983, in a Workmen's Compensation Case No. 37 of 1982.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal, may be shortly stated, at the outset. The present appellant is the original opponent and the present respondent is the original claimant. They are, hereinafter, referred to as original claimant and original opponent for the sake of convenience and brevity.
(3.) The original claimant filed an application for compensation of Rs. 23,900.00 for personal injuries sustained by him while working as a labourer in a saw mill of original opponent. Original opponent was the owner of the saw mill and the original claimant was a labourer of the opponent under the provisions of the Act. The original claimant contended that he was working as a workmen of opponent and he was getting Rs. 275.00 per month by way of salary. Original opponent is the owner of one "Jay Bharat Saw Mill" where the claimant was working as a labourer for pulling and cutting woods. The said Jay Bharat Saw Mill was situated in a village Alina, in Nadiad Taluka. Thus, according to the case of the injured claimant, he was working as a labourer on a wood cutting machine on the day of the accident. The accident occurred, on 9-8-1981, at about 9-40 a. m. The left hand of the original claimant came in contact with the saw machine and the original had sustained serious injuries on his left hand wrist. On account of the injury there was profuse bleeding and the injured claimant was shifted to the dispensary of one Dr. I. C. Patel, where he was admitted as indoor patient and subsequently an operation was carried out on the left hand wrist and plastic surgery was also done. According to the case of the original claimant, he sustained permanent total disablement in his left hand as a result of which his left hand became useless for any work and he was unable to do the labour work. Thus, the claimant contended that he sustained disablement during the course of his employment with original opponent and, therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs. 23,900.00 from the original opponent.