UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DEEPAKBHAI HIRABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has challenged the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, by which the learned Commissioner has allowed the Workman Compensation Application No. 10 of 1996 partly and it is held that the concerned workman is entitled to Rs.33783/- by way of compensation.

(2.) The concerned workman was serving in the factory belonging to respondent No.2 wherein he was getting salary at Rs.1500/- per month. While he was working in the factory on the relevant date, i.e. 11.09.95, he sustained employment injuries as his hand was crushed in a machine while operating the machine in the factory. He was admitted in the hospital and was subjected to operation by one Dr. Maru. According to the workman, he is 100% disable and because of the injury, he was removed from service. Inspite of demand since the amount was not paid, an application was filed for getting compensation at Rs.50,000/- as well as penalty and interest. The concerned parties appeared before the Commissioner. The learned Commissioner framed issues at Exh.29 and after considering evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the concerned workman has suffered 30% disability as per the medical certificate of the Doctor. The learned Commissioner found that the workman is entitled to compensation on the basis of the aforesaid 30% permanent disability and on that basis, the Commissioner awarded the aforesaid amount. While considering the payable amount, the authority considered the salary of the workman at Rs.1500/- per month. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under the Workmen Compensation Act.

(3.) Scope of the appeal is very limited and the appeal is maintainable only if substantial question of law is involved. Learned advocate Mrs. Desai submitted that the concerned workman had given consent that his disability may be taken at 15% but inspite of that his disability is taken at 30% and order is passed accordingly. She further submitted that even the concerned workman was continued in service for one year after the alleged incident and thereafter he was relieved from service. She submitted that the disability is, therefore, not permanent in nature.