NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SANJIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and award dated 9.3.98 passed in WC Case No. 82/97 by the Commissioaer, Workmen Compensation, Nagaon. It is not necessary to go to the facts of this case. The only argument advanced in this case is that Issue No. 4 was decided by the Commissioner wrongly and in violation of Section 4(1)(c) (ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The finding of the learned Commissioner in Issue No. 4 is quoted below: "Issue No. 4: This is a case of personal injuries and as per law under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the claimant petitioner is entitled to Compensation under the following head. Although no amputation was done on the part of injuries complete and permanent uses of that limb deemed to be equivalent to the loss of that limb or member. As the medical report is silent about the percentage of loss of earning capacity of the claimant petitioner due to physical injuries sustained by him, the Commissioner is empowered by law to determine the quantum of compensation. So, considering all relevant factors such as the medical reports, gravity of injuries sustained by the workman and on the basis of deposition, the Court is decided to hold the percentage of loss of earning capacity at 50%. According to the petitioner has monthly salary was Rs.2000.00 and admitted by the opposite party No. 1, the owner of the vehicle and his age was 20 years at the relevant period as per medical report of the doctor. Now, therefore, taking into consideration the monthly wages of the workman to be Rs.2000.00 PM as per explanation II of Section 4 of the Act, and his age to be 20 years at the relevant period, the claimant petitioner is entitled to compensation as per clause (c) of Section 1 of Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act as amended. 50% 1200 x 224.00 - Rs. 1,34,400.00 along with interest @ 12% per annum as per provision of clause(a) of such Section (3) of Section 4-A of the Act."

(2.) I have heard Mr S.K. Borkataki, learned counsel for appellant and Mr G.P. Bhowmick, learned counsel for respondents. It is urged by Mr Borkataki, learned counsel for appellant as follows:

(3.) On the other hand, Mr G.P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for respondents submits that even if the percentage of disability has not been assessed by the doctor, the Court in order to do speedy justice to the poor workmen can assess the loss of earning capacity and award compensation.