V SEKAR Vs. AFCONS CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is preferred by the claimant/appellant against the order dated 22.12.2000 passed in W.C.No.290 of 1999 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II, Chennai-6 and when the appeal came up for admission on 01.02.2002, it is admitted on the following questions of law. a) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation - II has power to reduce the percentage of disability and fix the same as 50%, when the Doctors fix the same as 70%? b) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-II ought not to have awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of accident under Sec.4A (3) of W.C. Act when the award was passed on merit.

(2.) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell are as follows: The appellant/claimant was working as labour in Afcons Pauling Joint Venture Company. On 26.09.1994 at about 1.15 p.m., during the course of the employment, the appellant /claimant sustained the following grievous injuries: i) Fracture left side Acetabeli ii)Fracture both public femus right side iii)Multiple injuries all over the body Immediately the appellant was admitted in Chenglepattu Medical College Hospital for treatment and then he was treated as inpatient from 26.09.1994 to 06.10.1994. Later he was taken treatment in Nambi Nursing Home and Poly Clinic, Chenglepattu. The claimant/appellant filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.73,472/-. The respondents resisted the claim. On pleadings the Commissioner framed the following issues:-

(3.) WHO is liable to pay the compensation? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs.52,480/- and also further directed the Insurance Company to deposit the said amount of Rs.52,480/- with interest at 6% p.a. within twenty days from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieved by that order, the claimant filed the present appeal for enhancement. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the Commissioner ought not to have reduced the disability from 70% to 50%. The Commissioner should have accepted the disability as claimed by the appellant. Further the learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant submitted that the claimant is entitled to the interest from the date of the accident and not from the date of receipt of the order. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner has to be set aside and it is a fit case for enhancement. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Commissioner had considered the facts and circumstances of the case and awarded the compensation and the finding made by the Commissioner was based on valid materials and evidence and also in accordance with law. He further submitted that the Commissioner has rightly rejected the claim in respect of the interest from the date of accident. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. The claimant himself examined as AW1. Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.A.1 is the discharge summary issued by Chenglepet Medical College Hospital. Ex.A2 is the Out patient case sheet. Ex.A3 is the Transfer certificate. Ex.A4 is the photo copy of Identity card. Ex.A5 is the Disability certificate. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked. Ex.R1 is the Insurance Policy. Ex.R2 is the Medical Report. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only during the course of the employment and awarded a compensation. The Commissioner computed the compensation as follows: Age Factor for 29 years : 209.92 Wages : Rs.1000/- Percentage of disability : 50% Compensation payable : 50/100 x 100 x 209.92 x 50/100 Rs.52,480/-