STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. WORKMENS COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the judgment of the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Banswara dated 25. 8. 87.

(2.) TWO contentions have been urged before me by the learned Deputy Government Advocate. His first contention is that the injured being an Assistant Engineer in the workshop at Mahi Project cannot be deemed to be workman and his second contention is that the compensation awarded to him is excessive looking to the injury received by him. In my opinion there is no force in either of the contentions. According to the amended definition of workman the injured could certainly be deemed to be a workman in-as much as he was employed in the workshop of the Mahi Project as an Assistant Engineer, the learned Commissioner has held him to be so and I do not see any reason to take a different view.

(3.) SO far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the doctor has given the nature of the injury in detail and has pointed out that this amounted to 45% loss of earning capacity. The doctor has been cross-examined at length but has not been dislodged from his above finding nor any evidence in rebuttal has been produced. In view of the medical evidence the award made in accordance with Section 4 (1) read with Schedule 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be said to be improper.