C DAVID Vs. GOBIND CHANDRA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned single Judge while hearing this appeal did not find himself in agreement with the opinion expressed by another learned single Judge of this Court in Regional Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narendra Samal: 1993 ACJ 1095. That is how, on being referred, this matter has come before us for hearing.

(2.) THE appellant C. David is a driver. On May 18, 1992 at about 5-40 a. m. when he in his capacity as driver was driving the car bearing registration number ORX 1612 belonging to the respondent No. l, it collided with a truck No. AP/t -2349 coming from opposite direction near the Rajaloka crossing under Jhara Pokharia P. S. in the district of Mayurbhanj on N. H. No. 5. As a result of the accident, the car was badly damaged and the appellant was seriously injured with fracture of right elbow and multiple injuries all over his body. He was removed to Baripada hospital for treatment. Later, he got himself treated in S. C. B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and also in a private clinic. After some days he filed an application before the Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming compensation of Rs. 70,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. The said application was registered as W. C. case No. 560 -D of 1992. The Respondent No. 1 the owner and Respondent No. 2 the insurer appeared before the Commissioner and filed their respective written statements. On perusal of evidence, the Commissioner, by the impugned order, came to hold that the appellant was injured and incurred physical disability in course of and arising out of his employment as a workman. He further held that at the time of the accident, the appellant was about 40 years of age and was getting Rs. 1000/- per month towards his wages. The Commissioner found that the appellant sustained different grievous and simple injuries including multiple fracture of right ulna and right forearm. The Commissioner accepted the statement of the doctor that the appellant suffered to the extent of permanent partial physical disability at 60% and assessed the compensation under Sec. 4 (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as indicated below:

(3.) THE appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner has filed this appeal under Section 30 (1) of the Act contending that the amount of compensation is inadequate which ought to have been fixed as a case of total disablement.