NISSAN SPRINGS PVT LTD Vs. OM JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), against the award dated July 20, 1984 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), Jabalpur, in W. C. C. Case No. 51/81 (N. F) awarding the sum of Rs. 9,676. 80 as compensation in favour of the respondent. The respondent has also challenged this order by filing his separate appeal which is Misc. Appeal No. 281/1984 (Om Jain v. Nissan Springs Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.) and has claimed interest and penalty on the aforesaid amount. Since both these appeals arise on the same set of facts, they are being decided by this judgment.

(2.) THE respondent Om Jain had in his application dated December 8. 1981, submitted that he was employed as an Electrician with the appellants and was on duty on October 9, 1980 at 10. 30 a. m. , when an electric Motor fell on his right foot causing fracture of his ankle. According to him, he was first sent to Victoria Hospital for treatment and was subsequently shifted to Medical College, Jabalpur. He further claimed that he has developed 100% permanent disablement as a result of this accident and was therefore, entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs. 26,880 from the appellants. He also claimed interest and penalty to the extent of 50% of the said amount. The appellants denied that the respondent suffered an injury on October 9, 1980, in the course of employment and arising out of employment. They specifically denied that an electric motor fell on the respondent's foot causing fracture. The learned Commissioner, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, held that the respondent suffered employment injury on October 9, 1980, as alleged and thereby suffered loss of 40% of his earning capacity. The respondent was, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 9,676. 80 as compensation. It is this judgment which is impugned in the present appeal.

(3.) SUBMISSION of the learned Counsel for the appellants, in the main, is that though large number of documents were filed by the parties, none of them received any consideration from the learned Commissioner, and hence the impugned order is bad in law and does not decide the lis correctly. According to the learned Counsel, the impugned award is also perverse inasmuch as it ignores documentary evidence on record altogether. The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, supported the impugned award and submitted that no substantial question of law arises in the appeal for consideration of this Court and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The learned Counsel further submitted that since the Commissioner has, without reason, not awarded interest and penalty even though necessary conditions for the same were existing, the appeal filed by the respondent deserves to be allowed.