GENERAL MANAGER Vs. PORARAPU DURGAYYA RAJAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short W. C. Act), the management, i. e. the General Manager of Western Coalfields Ltd. (for short W. C. L.)has filed this appeal challenging the Award dated 4-5-1991 passed by the commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Chandrapur, in W. C. C. No. 45 (19)/ 86, directing the management to pay compensation of Rs. 42,360=00 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident till realisation.

(2.) BRIEF facts are as under: the respondent is an employee as a coal filler since 1965 in Hindustan lal Peth Colliery No. 1. The employee as met with an accident while he was on duty on 28-7-1985 at about 1. 00 p. m. While he was filling the coal in the first shift, a big heap of coal from the roof had fallen on his left shoulder causing him serious injuries. He was unable to lift anything with his right hand and, therefore he was admitted at Lalpeth dispensary under the management of the appellants where he took medical treatment for about 40 days. Thereafter also he took treatment at lalpeth colliery dispensary for about 2 month as outdoor patient. In November, 1985 he reported on duty and he was provided a light job for the period of about a month. On 28-12-1985, the employee was directed to consult the in charge, Rehabilitation Centre, Chhindwara, for physiotherapy and he was asked to report within a week. The employee complied the instructions and the Medical Superintendent, Wardha Valley Area Hospital again instructed the employee on 15-1-1986, to approach Chhindwara hospital for further treatment. However, no required facility was made available to him for going to Chhindwara and, therefore, the employee was constrained to take treatment from the private hospital. The employee contended that he was not provided the light job though he had suffered permanent disablement and he was unable to work his regular job as a coal filler and, therefore, he was again asked to carry out the work of attendant up to 24-12-1985. The management was called upon to give provisional compensation but in vain. Ultimately, the employee had filed an application under section 10 (1)of W. C. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 96,580/ -.

(3.) THE management resisted the claim of compensation on the ground that the employee did not comply with the directions issued by the management as is required under section 11 of the W. C. Act and, therefore, he is not entitled to receive the compensation and he also did not suffer from any permanent or partial disablement, and, therefore his application was liable to be dismissed.