MANAGER, ANGUL ELECTRICAL DIVISION Vs. GOTIKA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, Angul (for short, "Commissioner") in W.C. Case No. 11 of 2004 on the ground that the same is illegal, perverse and contrary to the provisions of law. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimant respondent No. 1's husband was working as a helper at Athamalik Structure under the appellant. On 24.10.2003 at about 3.30 P.M., while he was performing his duty he came in contact with electric current and sustained severe burnt injury on his left hand and other parts of his body and he was shifted to Athamalik, Boinda and Angul District Headquarters Hospital. The doctor amputed his left hand below the elbow. Further case of the workman is that due to such accident he is unable to perform his duty which he was doing prior to this accident. In the claim application, the workman, the husband of respondent No. 1 stated that he was 39 years old and his monthly wage was Rs. 4,100 at the time of accident. With these averments, the workman claimed an amount of Rs. 3,13,992 towards compensation along with interest.

(2.) The opposite party/appellant on being noticed filed written statement admitting the accident, but denied its liability for payment of compensation on the ground that at the time of accident the applicant was not directed by the Officer or Lineman to do the work and applicant was doing the job in his personal capacity. There was no loss of earning capacity to him inasmuch as he is getting all the service benefits. However, regarding monthly wages and age, the appellant has not raised any dispute. On the pleadings of the rival parties, the Commissioner framed two issues (i) whether applicant sustained injury due to the accident occurred in course of and arising out of his employment? (ii) What is his loss of earning capacity?

(3.) After taking into consideration both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Commissioner held that the workman met with an accident in course of the employment. It is further held that the disability of the workman is 70% as he has lost vital limb/organ of the body and has also lost 70% of his earning capacity as workman and the injury suffered by him is permanent in nature. Monthly income of the workman is taken at Rs. 4,000. The learned Commissioner on the basis of the school certificate has taken the age of the workman at 53 years as on the date of occurrence. Accordingly, it computed compensation at Rs. 2,39,702 and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount.