MESSRS VIBGYAR PLASTICS Vs. K MUNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court was as follows : THE opposite party in a claim under Workmen's Compensation Act has filed the above appeal. THE respondent while working under the appellant received personal injuries arising out in the course of his employment resulting in permanent disability. THE accident occurred around 4.00 a.m. on 04-06-1996 while he was working as an injection moulder in the machine. THE switch failed resulting in the accident. THE Respondent sustained fracture on the right hand. He suffers inability to flex his fingers and sustained other injuries also. According to the respondent the disability is 40%. He was 18 years old at the time of accident earning a monthly salary of Rs. 1500/- and he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 2, 00, 000/- as compensation. THE appellant in the counter statement denied all the allegations. THE Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 70318/-. Aggrieved by this the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) MR. Jayachandran, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner had erred in ignoring the findings of the Government Doctor marked as Ex-A1 issued at the time of discharge of the Workmen and that the findings in Exs-A1 and A4 are unsustainable and contradictory and when Ex-A1, the discharge certificate had certified that there is no disability the Commissioner erred in awarding the compensation. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there is no denial that the accident occurred during the course of employment and the respondent had examined a Doctor who would certify the disability at 40% and therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the award. A perusal of the award shows that the Commissioner has taken into consideration the evidence not only on the respondent's side namely A.W. 1 who is the respondent himself and A.W.Z. the Doctor but also R.W. 1, partner of the opposite party namely the appellant herein and R.W.Z. This is what the Commissioner has stated with regard to examination of R.W. 1, the partner of the appellant :

(3.) IN view of my discussions above I do not think there is any contradiction between Exs-A1 and A4 to warrant interference with the order of the Commissioner. This C.M.A is therefore, dismissed with costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 8793 of 2000 is closed.