GOVIND DAL MILL Vs. CHUNNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the award dated 21. 6. 2004 passed by the Workmen's Compensation commissioner, whereby he has awarded the compensation of Rs. 61,236 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent up to 21. 7. 2004 and has further directed that, thereafter the interest shall be paid at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Moreover, he has imposed penalty of Rs. 12,274 being 20 per cent of the compensation amount.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent workman, Chunni Lal (henceforth to be referred to as 'the workman' in short)had filed a claim petition before the learned Commissioner wherein he stated that he was employed as a worker in the appellant's dal mill. He was assigned the work of placing chana and moong dal into a machine. According to him, on 18. 10. 94, while he was about to leave the work area, his leg was caught in the fan belt. Consequently, he fell and while falling, his right hand was caught in the machine. There fore, he suffered grievous injuries. During the course of treatment, his right hand had to be amputated from the shoulder. He was under treatment for almost one and a half years. Because of the accident, his legs also became handicapped. He further claimed that at the time of the accident, he was earning Rs. 700 per month and at that time he was aged 45 years. He further alleged that after the accident, his work had been changed. He was thereafter required to work as a chowkidar. But on 15. 11. 1999, he was removed from the service without any notice, and without any cause. While he was working with the appellant, on many occasions he had orally requested for the payment of compensation. Many assurances had been given by the appellant, but no money had been paid to him. Therefore, he sent the notice under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the act' in short) on 24. 11. 1999. But despite the notice, no compensation was paid. The said claim petition was filed for compensation of Rs. 1,50,000.

(3.) THE appellant, while filing the reply, contended that the claim petition is hit by limitation. He further claimed that the accident was caused due to negligence of the worker himself. According to them, immediately after the accident, the appellant had paid Rs. 56,000 for which, the workman and the appellant had entered into an agreement. Since the said amount had already been paid, they were no longer liable to pay the compensation under the act. They further denied the fact that he was hired subsequently, as a chowkidar.