MAHINDER SINGH Vs. DIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Mohinder Singh, minor, through his mother Sham Kaur against Dial Singh. It is directed against the order dated November 29, 1965 of Mr. N.R. Aggarwal, Senior Sub Judge, Bhatinda exercising powers as Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The facts leading to the appeal are as under: -

(2.) THE Appellant was employed as workman with the Respondent. He was working in his cotton ginning factory. He fed the factory with raw cotton. While working in the factory on December 26, 1964, his thumb and index, middle and ring fingers were chopped off. The Appellant claimed Rs. 2520/ - by way of compensation for the injuries suffered by him. The claim of the Appellant was opposed by the Respondent. The evidence of the Respondent was closed on November. 12, 1965. The case came up for further hearing on November 29, 1965. On that date, the mother of the minor Appellant acting as his next -friend entered into compromise with the Respondent and agreed to accept all told sure of Rs. 500 as compensation. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the compromise, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal. Two -fold attack has been levelled against the order of compromise. It is stated that his mother, who is an illiterate old lady, was coerced by the Respondent to enter into compromise against her wishes and against the interest of the minor Appellant and that in any case by virtue of Section 17 of Workmen's Compensation Act. 1923 (hereinafter called the Act), such an agreement is null and void and hence ineffective against the Appellant. In this appeal, I cannot pronounce any judgment on the involuntary character of the compromise entered into between the parties as the plea to that effect was not raised before the Commissioner and no finding thereon is before me. It is not necessary for me to do so in the light of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. That section runs as follows:

(3.) IN the result the appeal is allowed, the order dated November 29, 1965 is set aside and the case remanded to the Commissioner to resume proceedings from the, stage at which they were immediately prior to the recording of compromise between the parties. The costs of this appeal shall abide by the event. The counsel for the parties have undertaken that the parties shall appear before the Commissioner on April 12, 1972.