BHANORA COLLIERY, ETC., CO. Vs. PODA TELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 from an order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation dated 12th February, 1971.

(2.) THE respondent filed a claim for compensation on the allegation that while working in the appellant's colliery on 1st March, 1968, he suffered injuries to his left foot and toes causing permanent partial disablement entailing loss of earning capacity to the extent of 25%. It has to be mentioned that orignially the claim was filed on 20th March, 1968, claiming loss of earning capacity to the extent of 10%. The amendment petition was filed on the 5th October, 1969, and from the records produced before us it appears that a copy of the said amendment petition was handed over to the advocate for the appellant on 9th October, 1969. On the 9th October, 1 69, the amendment petition was taken up for consideration by the learned Commissioner and the prayer was allowed and time was given to the appellant to file additional written statement.

(3.) FROM the judgment of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation it appears that only one issue was framed for decision, namely: Has the applicant sustained any permanent partial disability involving loss of earning capacity? If so, to what extent ? The learned Commissioner records that the only point contended by the appellant was that the respondent had not suffered any permanent disablement as a result of the minor injuries suffered by him at his left foot only. The respondent belonged to the wage group between Rs. 150 and 200 per month. On behalf of the respondent he himself gave evidence. He stated in his evidence that he had sustained injuries to his left foot and toes and felt much pain and was treated for six months and was under plaster. The respondent has further stated that he was unable to work then. He was cross -examined on behalf of the appellant. It was suggested that he had resumed job on 21st May, 1968, and thereafter had left his job. The respondent denied the said suggestion. It was further suggested to him that the appellant did not discharge him. The respondent also denied the said suggestion. On behalf of the respondent one Dr. D. K. Roy Choudhury gave evidence. His evidence was the medical evidence on behalf of the respondent and he stated that he had examined the applicant and he proved the certificate which was given by him as also the X -ray plate which was marked as Ext. 2. In cross -examination he admitted that he had not seen any medical papers and further stated that the respondent could walk with great difficulty and by limping. According to the said 'doctor, the respondent had suffered physical disability which he assessed at 25%. The said doctor denied that the said assessment was high.