MAST RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the injured workman is from the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Shimla in case No. LAO (1)-R-35/1984 dated March 24, 1987 seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs. 5,260/- awarded by the Commissioner to Rs. 21,228/- with interest thereon from October 12, 1984, the date of institution of the claim. The appellant was working as a laborer under the Assistant Engineer, Thanadhar Sub-Division and in the course of his employment, he sustained an injury on September 21, 1984. The Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor and produced by the department before the Commissioner disclosed that the appellant sustained fracture of right claricle and fracture of right knee. The nature of the disability was described as permanent and the percentage of disability with loss of earning capacity was assessed by the Doctor at "twenty per cent to whole body". The Doctor (Orthopaedic Surgeon, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla) also opined that the appellant "cannot work as a labourer any more. Should be provided with light work". At the time of the injury, the appellant was getting a daily wage of Rs. 9. 25 paise.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that no alternative light work was provided to the appellant and, therefore, the loss of 20% permanent disability sustained by him had resulted in the loss of 100% earning capacity.

(3.) THE Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,260/- stating that it was the amount for which the appellant was entitled to "according to Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act", Aggrieved by that, the present appeal was brought. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides, we are of the view that this appeal must succeed. Section 4 (1) (b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") deals with the amount payable as compensation. Where permanent total disablement is the consequence of the injury, Clause (b) of Subsection (1) says that the amount of compensation shall be "equal to fifty per cent of the monthly wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of Rs. 24,000/-whichever is more". The injury of the nature sustained by the appellant is not specified is not covered by Schedule-1 of the Act. In case where injury sustained is not covered by Schedule-I. Clause (ii) of Explanation-II says that the compensation payable shall be "as is proportionate to thee loss of earning capacity (as assessed by the qualified medical practitioner) permanently caused by the injury". The relevant factors to be taken into consideration for working out lump sum equivalent of compensation in case of permanent disablement and death are specified in Schedule-IV. 153. 09 is the factor relevant in case of a person aged 50 years. As the appellant was aged 50 years at the time of the accident, the relevant factor to be taken into account is 153. 09. Applying the principle contained in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4, we arrive at the figure of Rs. 21. 228. 75 paise as the amount of compensation being the 50% of the monthly wages of the appellant multiplied by the relevant factor 153. As the aforesaid provision says that where the amount of compensation works out to less than Rs. 24,000, the compensation to be awarded must be Rs. 24,000. The Commissioner had not taken the aforesaid relevant statutory provisions into consideration while determining the amount of compensation. We, therefore, hold that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 24,000. As he was already awarded a sum of Rs. 5,260, he is entitled to the remaining amount of Rs. 18,740 with interest calculated at the rate of 6% from October 12, 1984, the date of the institution of the claim before the Commissioner.