DHANANJAY RAMKRISHNA JOSHI Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the original claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, Labour Court, Sangli. The trial court has awarded the amount of Rs. 5000.00 as compensation. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the appellant is that on the basis of the certificate submitted by the Civil Surgeon the trial court has found that the claimant has lost vision of one eye completely and therefore he is entitled to claim 30% incapacity and compensation on that count. The trial court has further held that therefore on that basis the claimant would be entitled to an amount of Rs. 11,000.00. The trial court however has reduced the amount of compensation because the trial court has recorded a finding that the workman himself was responsible for the damage caused in the accident to himself. The Learned Counsel submits that there is no material on record to record such a finding that the workman himself was responsible for the accident. The Learned Counsel by referring to the deposition of the workman/claimant, which is the only evidence on record, submits that there is nothing in this evidence to show that the claimant himself was responsible for the accident.

(2.) The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits that the claimant himself has stated that his normal place of work was 10-15 feet away from the place where moulding operation were carried out and there were 25-30 moulders working on the moulder and 4 persons were operating the furnace-kiln. The Learned Counsel submits that the claimant being new on the job there being no question of assigning him a job at furnace and therefore the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the claimant went to furnace kiln on his own is right.

(3.) Now, if in the light of these rival submissions the record of the case is perused, it reveals that the only evidence on record is the deposition of the claimant. He has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that he was directed by Mr. Samudre, who is the officer of the Respondent, to work near furnace. In his cross examination he has reiterated the same thing. He has stated that though other persons working near the furnace were having goggles, he was not given any goggle for safety, though he was asked to work near the furnace. It was possible for the Respondent to disprove the version of the claimant by examining Mr. Samudre, who has been specifically named by the claimant as the officer who asked him to work near the furnace. The Respondent has not examined any witness. It is thus, to my mind, clear that there is nothing in the deposition of the claimant, which is, as observed the only evidence, even to indicate that the claimant started working on the furnace on his own. Thus, I do not find any justification for reducing the amount of compensation to which the trial court itself finds that the claimant is entitled namely Rs. 11,000.00. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to additional amount of Rs. 6000.00 as compensation. As the amount has remained unpaid, the claimant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% pa. on the additional amount from the date of accident till the date of realisation. It is accordingly ordered that the claimant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 6000.00 in addition to the amount of Rs. 5000.00, which has been awarded by the trial Court as compensation and interest at the rate of 6% p.a_ shall be payable on the additional amount of Rs. 6000.00 from the date of accident till the date of its realisation. Appeal disposed of with costs. Certified Copy expedited. Appeal disposed of