NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. BABAJI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurer has filed this appeal under Section 30 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order of the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, who has awarded a sum of Rs. 39,043. 80 as compensation payable to respondent No. 1.

(2.) WHILE respondent No. 1 was working as coolie in truck bearing registration number OAG 364 belonging to respondent No. 2, it met with an accident on February 20, 1992 at about 4 a. m. near Khuntuni Indira Gandhi field under Gurudijhatia police station and consequently he sustained multiple injuries on his person. The said accident occurred in course of his employment. He was getting Rs. 900/- per month and was aged about 25 years at the time of occurrence. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he became disabled. On this ground he filed an application claiming a compensation of Rs. 70,000/- before the Commissioner. The Commissioner held that the vehicle in question met with the accident and at the time of the accident respondent No. 1 was working as a coolie who sustained bodily injuries. He further held that respondent No. 1 is disabled up to the extent of 40 percent which is permanent in nature and has lost his earning capacity. He also held that respondent No. l was getting Rs. 900/- per month as wages and was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident and on that basis he determined compensation at Rs. 39,043. 80. As the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant, the Commissioner directed that the entire compensation amount is liable to be paid by the appellant.

(3.) PROVISO to Section 30 (1) of the Act provides that no appeal shall lie against any order made by the Commissioner unless substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. When this case was taken up for hearing on July 12, 1994, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no evidence on record that respondent No. 1 was disabled to the extent of 40 per cent and, as such, the compensation determined by the Commissioner is vitiated in law. It was submitted that the doctor who was examined as p. w. 2 in the case has not opined on the question of disability with reference to the provisions contained in section 4 (1) (c) (ii) Explanation II of the Act. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 did not dispute this fact but submitted that the matter should be remanded to the Commissioner for re-examining the doctor on the point. As remand would further protract the litigation, I passed order on July 12, 1994 holding that instead of remanding the case, the doctor should be examined by the Court so that necessary particulars could be elicited from him and the matter could be finally disposed of. Accordingly notice was issued to the doctor who appeared in Court on February 8, 1995. He was examined and cross-examined by this counsel for the parties. Certain documents were also exhibited.