N POCHIAH AND CO Vs. MULLE NAGABHUSHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) two civil miscellaneous appeals are against a common order dated 28-12-1961 of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad in W. C. Cases Nos. 305/60 and 110/61.

(2.) The short facts necessary for disposal of these appeals may be stated:--The petitioner, Mulls Nagabhushanam (hereinafter called the workman) made a claim for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called the Act) against N. Pochaiah and N. Lakshminarayana. In the first petition, he claimed compensation for the loss of the index finger of the right hand as a result of an accident, which took place in June 1957. In the second petition, he claimed compensation for the loss of the left arm below the elbow on 9/06/1958 as a result of another accident, both the accidents having arisen out of and in the course of the employment with the respondents therein. Both the petitions were filed on 16-12-1960. Under Section 10(1) of the Act, an application claiming compensation must be made within two years of the occurrence of the accident, and as such both these applications were beyond time. The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, however, condoned the delay in making those applications, and disposed of the claims on their merits. He found that the employer of the Workman (Mr. Nagabhushanam) was the first respondent before him viz. N. Pochaiah and Co. He also found that the two injuries were sustained by the workman out of and in the course of his employment with the respondents. On those findings, he held that the total loss of the earning capacity sustained by the workman under Section 4(1)(c)(i) of Schedule I to the Act was 56-2/3 per cent of the total earning capacity and determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 1,428.00 and passed an order directing the respondents to pay that amount and a further sum of Rs. 24 towards expenses.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner the employer, N. Pochiah and Co., filed one appeal to this Court. The office took the objection that, since the order of the Commissioner related to two injuries resulting from two accidents, which took place on two different dates, two appeals must be filed. The Advocate for the appellants was confronted with a problem, as the order of the Commr. was a comprehensive one and could not be read as two awards in a common order, and the Commissioner, had not even apportioned how much of the compensation is to be paid for the loss of the index finger of the right hand, and how much for the loss of left arm. However the advocate complied with the objection of the office, and filed two appeals, which are numbered as stated above.