JAICHAND SOMCHAND SHAH Vs. VITHAL BAJIRAO MARATHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the respondent, a workman employed in the Khandesh Saw Mill at Nandurbar, received an injury to his right hand in December 1929 and made a claim for compensation in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bombay. The Commissioner awarded Rs. 847 as compensation to the respondent.

(2.) The first point urged in this appeal is that the respondent did not give notice under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, VIII of 1923, The respondent received a serious injury to his right hand and was removed to the dispensary by the employees of the appellant and was in the hospital for one month and twenty days and attended as an outdoor patient for another month. He applied for compensation on several occasions to the appellant and finally in March 1930 made an application in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, He does not appear to have given written notice to the opposite party but applied verbally. The learned Commissioner held that having regard to the fact that the appellant had constructive notice of the accident and he himself had reported the accident to the Factory Inspector, the want of written notice could be excused.

(3.) It appears that Sub-sections (2) and (5) of Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act indicate that the notice required by the section must bo in writing though it is not specified in Sub-section (1) whether the notice should be in writing or verbal. The notice must be given as soon as practicable after the happening of the accident and before the workman has voluntarily left the employment in which he was injured. There is no evidence in the case that the respondent voluntarily left the employment in which he was injured. He was removed to the hospital by the employees of the appellant and he several times approached the appellant for compensation and also for employment but was referred to the Court. It is difficult, therefore, to hold that notice was necessary in the absence of any evidence that the respondent voluntarily left the employment.