ANGUS CO LTD Vs. CHOUTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of the two grounds urged in this appeal, one is really a ground of fact, but the other raises what appears to be a question of first impression. It is this: Does the Workmen's Compensation Act contemplate successive applications with respect to the same injury or, to put it in more precise terms, when the compensation payable for a particular injury has been settled cither by an award or by agreement can the workman concerned make a second application on the ground that the injury has since been aggravated and the disablement has increased and that consequently he is entitled to further compensation?

(2.) The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are as follows: The respondent, Chouthi, was admittedly a workman employed under the appellant company and admittedly on 5-1-1951, he suffered a personal injury by accident in the course of and arising out of his employment. The accident was that, while on duty, he was knocked down by one of the railway engines of the employer-company. The injuries suffered were of a ghastly character. They included a compound fracture of both the upper and lower jows, including the teeth and the nasal bones, injury to the skull and injury to the scalp, that to the scalp being so violent that the bone was broken to pieces and several of them, necrosed or not necrosed, had to be extracted by more than one operation. Strange as it might seem, the workman survived. After the accident, he was taken immediately to the company's own hospital and treated there till 21-2-1051 when he was discharged. Thereafter, negotiations seemed to have been commenced between the parties as to fixing the compensation payable to the respondent by agreement and in the course of such negotiations he was examined by one Dr. Garrow who assessed his disability as permanent and as involving loss of 60 per cent. of his earning capacity. When the matter came up to the Commissioner under Section 28 of the Act, he though that, in view of the nature of the injuries, it was desirable that the workman should be examined by a Brain Specialist. Accordingly, the respondent was examined by one Dr. Anklesaria, who is an F. R. C. S. of the London University and a brain surgeon. Dr. Anklesaria examined the respondent and after doing so, confirmed the assessment of his disability as made by Dr. Garrow. In the certificate granted by him on 10-7-1951 he added that it would be advisable for the respondent to do only light work for the present, but after a period of about six months, he would be able to do ordinary work.

(3.) Both the general physician and the Brain Specialist having assessed the respondent's disability as involving loss of 60 per cent. of his earning Capacity, an agreement was entered into between him and his employers on the same basis and it was registered on 18-7-1951. The compensation agreed to was Rs. 1512/-, of which a portion having been received by the workman previously the actual payment made after the registration of the agreement was Rs. 1357/-. The basis on which the compensation was settled was that of a 'permanent partial disability.