NATIONAL INDURANCE COMPANY Vs. RAM MEHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main contention of counsel for the Appellant is that amount of compensation in the present case has been determined under Section 4(1)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, (for short 'the Act') which is relevant in cases where permanent total disablement results from the injury.

(2.) Counsel for the Appellant submits that it is a case which falls under Section 4 (1)(b)(ii) the Act and that the amount of Rs. 90,000/- payable under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act cannot be paid under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the Appellant and presuming the same to be a substantial question of law, carefully considered the arguments in context to the pleadings and evidence produced on the record. A perusal of the claim petition indicates that the Appellant had mentioned in para 5 of the petition that the claimant had sustained injuries as well as multiple injuries and fracture and the said fact has not been specifically denied in the reply filed by the employer of the Appellant company.