ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SRI MRINMOY CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the award dated 31-12- 2002 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Dhubri in W.C. Case No. 1/2002. By the said award the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has determined the compensation amount at Rs. 3,75,534.00. While admitting this appeal on 13-04- 2007 the following substantial question of law was framed:

(2.) One Mrinmoy Chatterjee, who was working as Factory Assistant in Krishnakali Tea Estate met with an accident on 29-09- 2001 while supervising the maintenance work of CTC machine in the factory premises. The workman received injury on right hand and left leg. He was taken to garden hospital initially and shifted to Chapar Hospital wherefrom he was referred to Orthopedic Surgeon at Siliguri for treatment under Dr. K.N. Chatterjee Memorial Nursing Home at Hill Cart Road, Siliguri, West Bengal. According to the workman he also received treatment in Apollo Specialty Hospital at Chennai. At the time of the accident, he was 25 years of age and was receiving Rs. 1,49,30/- per day including all allowances and cash value of ration. The learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner perused the injury certificate dated 03-11-2001, the written statement submitted by the appellant Insurance Company, recorded the deposition of the witnesses PW1 and PW2. The PW1 is the victim workman and PW2 is another workman of the same Tea Estate. Neither of the opposite parties, i.e., the management or the Insurance Companry led any evidence. The insurance policy bearing No. 2002/10/2001/7/0 was brought on record to show that it was valid from 07-06-2001 to 06-06-2002 where as accident took place on 29- 09-2001. Money receipt from the Apollo Hospital, X-Ray plate and other medical documents were brought on record and the same received consideration of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was satisfied that the claimant was a workman and that the incident was covered by the insurance policy and that the workman suffered from permanent partial disablement and that the same is non-scheduled one.

(3.) In this view of the matter the case in hand comes under sweep of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which provides as follows: