RANJIT SINGH Vs. GURBAKSH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Indore in Case No. 43 of 1997 (W.C.N.F.) dated 19.1.2000, whereby the claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs. 87,351 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, claimant is not satisfied with this award, therefore, it has been challenged through this appeal.

(2.) The claimant was a cleaner with the truck No. MP 09-KA 7765. When truck reached Nagod Road from Satna his truck was hit by another truck coming from the opposite side. The accident resulted in serious injuries to his left and right feet apart from the fracture of knee causing 100 per cent disability. He was earning salary of Rs. 2,000 per month apart from Rs. 1,200 diet money. At the time of the accident he was 28 years old. A claim for Rs. 2,54,184 has been raised. Gurbaksh Singh, respondent No. 1, states that the vehicle is insured with the respondent No. 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., therefore, it is responsible to pay the compensation. The respondent No. 2 states that the claimant was not employed with respondent No. 1 and he did not receive the injuries during the employment, as such, the averments as to age, salary and accident are imaginary and unfounded. The Workmen's Commissioner has found that the claimant was a workman and he received injuries in this accident causing disablement to the extent of 35 per cent. Consequently, amount to the extent of Rs. 87,351 has been awarded.

(3.) Mr. S.S. Chawla, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate. Due to the serious injuries, not scheduled, the claimant is not in a position to work, therefore, his earning capacity has been reduced by 100 per cent. To sustain this view, the learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decisions reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Balmat Singh, 1997 ACJ 368 (MP); Gurucharansing Hardayalsing Sethi v. Narhari Laxman Shinde, 1997 ACJ 372 (Bombay); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kashim, 1996 ACJ 928 (Karnataka); Shankarlal v. General Manager, Central Railway, 1990 ACJ 1028 (MP) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Saleem Khan, 1993 ACJ 181 (AP). Precisely, the submission of the learned counsel is that since the workman has been completely disabled from earning anything, therefore, the disablement is 100 per cent. Consequently, the compensation has to be assessed accordingly. This submission is opposed by Mr. A. Goel, learned counsel for United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Indore. It is submitted that the claimant is not completely disabled from earning anything. Assuming, looking to the nature of the injuries, he cannot work as a cleaner but he can get any other assignment. Mr. Goel submits that certificate of the medical expert as to the extent of the percentage of the disablement, is of fundamental importance, we can find out the extent of disability and assess the earning capacity of the claimant.