MADRAS DOCK LABOUR BOARD Vs. MANJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the Madras Dock Labour Board against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras, awarding compensation of Rs. 4,500 (inclusive of costs) to Manjini, the respondent, under the following circumstances:

(2.) THE respondent was' working as a sub -pool Mazdoor No. 5191 in the Dock Labour Board. While he was oh duty on the deck of a ship on 5th October, 1966, he sustained injuries as a result of an accident. As he and other workmen were loading the ship with bundles of tobacco, it started raining, whereupon all the workmen were taken to the deck of the ship. As Manjini and three others were tying the tent to four rods in the deck, a gale started blowing. The four Workmen were catching hold of the four corners of the tarpaulin tent as it started whirling round. The other three let go the tent with the result that the: tarpaulin tent flung the respondent over a distance of 20 feet on the deck. He fell down on his back and became unconscious. According to him, when he recovered consciousness, he found himself in an ambulance van, which was taking him to the Government Stanley Hospital, where the doctors bandaged his external injuries and sent him away in a richshaw to his house. He underwent treatment at the Stanley Hospital from 5th October, 1966 to 22nd October, 1966 and later in the Dock Labour Board Dispensary. According to Dr. Francis John, the Medical Officer of the Dock Labour Board, Manjini was found fit to resume duty from 24th November, 1966, but he failed to report for work and, therefore, he was discharged. But Manjini said that he stayed away from Work because the movement of his lumber spine had been affected as a result of the injuries sustained during the accident. He produced Exhibit P -1, the certificate dated 9th March, 1967 from Dr. Narayanan, who was the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, to the effect that he had suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 41 per cent. He, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 4,592 under Section 16 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Unfortunately, the doctor, who issued the medical certificate, was not examined by the Additional Commissioner. He, however, acted upon the Medical Certificate of the doctor, and after a physical look at Manjini, felt convinced that he could not walk or bend even, and, therefore, awarded compensation as prayed for. In appeal, however, both the parties invited me to summon Dr. Narayanan and the present doctor attached to the Dock Labour Board Dispensary and to re -examine Manjini, the injured person. This request of the parties was granted in the interest of justice and the said persons were examined.

(3.) THERE is, therefore, no gainsaying the fact that as on 18th February, 197a, he has a permanent disability, which prevents him from bending the spine and doing any work as a labourer. The question arises whether this disability is the result of the injury sustained by him on 5th October, 1966. Unfortunately, like the poor, labourer that he is. neither the Stanley Medical Hospital, to which he was taken immediately after the accident, nor the Dispensary of the Madras Dock Labour Board took the precaution of taking an X -ray photograph to find Out if in addition to the abrasions he sustained oh the back during the accident, he had sustained any internal injuries. Dr; Narayanan, who clinically examined Manjini on 9th March, 1967, says "as follows: