ASHUTOSH SEAL Vs. GOURIPORE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (8 of 1923). The facts are that the Appellant - a workman employed by (the Gouripore Company, Ltd. - suffered an injury to his left hand causing, according to the medical evidence, an abrasion on the outer side of the left index finger and an injury exposing the subcutaneous tissue It is not disputed that the injury was caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. This happened on the 25 June 1925. He was treated by the doctor attached to the Mill till the 30 June. He then, it appears, went to the Imambara hospital in Hughly on the opposite side of the river where he was treated from the 2nd to the 8 July. On the 8 July he wanted to become an indoor-patient of the hospital, but he was asked by the doctor to get a letter to that effect from the Mill. On that day, according to the appellant's evidence at about noon he went to the Mill and obtained the necessary letter. Sometime after that it was found that gangrene had set in and that operation was necessary. In the result, two of his fingers (index and thumb) had to be am putated. He then applied under the Act for compensation for the injury thus caused to his person. It is a case of partial disablement as defined in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act.

(2.) It is not disputed before us that if the workman is found entitled to any compensation, he would, under the schedule to the Act, be able to recover Rs. 367 odd from the defendant. The learned commissioner appointed under Section 20 of the Act dismissed the workman's claim and hence this appeal. Under Section 30 of the Act an appeal lies to this Court on two conditions : (1) that a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal; and (2) that the amount in dispute on the appeal is not less than Rs. 300. The second ground is satisfied because the value of the appeal is more than Rs. 300. As regards the first point, the question of law involved is as to whether the Commissioner approached the case from the correct standpoint and whether the workman's claim was not dismissed on a wrong interpretation of the law. We are of opinion that in the present case the appeal is competent and that it is open to us in this first appeal to decide all questions of law and fact that arise in it.

(3.) The learned Commissioner framed an issue in the case which is to this effect: Was the loss of applicant's left index finger and thumb solely and directly attributable to the accident?