MOHAN LAL Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER E DIVISION H P S E B
LAWS(HPH)-1997-8-2
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on August 26,1997

MOHAN LAL Appellant
VERSUS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E) DIVISION, H.P.S.E.B Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PRATAP NARAIN SINGH DEO VS. SRINIVAS SABATA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.Srinivasan, C.J. - (1.)This appeal is against the Award of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, "The Act"). The appellant was working as a Beldar. On 7.2.1985 an accident occurred while he was in the course of employment on account of which he suffered loss of his left arm which was amputated above elbow. The medical certificate issued to him showed that he had suffered permanent physical impairment of 80. per cent. He was earning Rs. 360/- per month as a Beldar. The Commissioner has worked out the compensation at Rs. 31,000.32 and awarded the same. The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the said amount. According to the appellant, there are two errors committed by the Commissioner. The first is that the Commissioner has not considered the question of awarding penalty under Section 4-A of the Act. The employer had not given the information as required by the Act within a period of 7 days from the date of the accident, The accident occurred on 7.2.1985 but the information was given on 18.7.1986. The second error pointed out by the appellant is that the Commissioner has erred in fixing the amount of Rs. 31,000/- taking the disability at 80 per cent whereas it is. a case of permanent total disablement as the appellant has been incapacitated to work as a labourer after the amputation of his left arm. Hence it is contended that a compensation of Rs. 38,000/ and odd should have been awarded in addition to the penalty.
(2.)In so far as the quantum ot compensation is concerned, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Schedule-I shows that the tion below shoulder falls under Part II of the Schedule. Learned counsel contends that this will fall under Part I as it is a case of loss of hand but we find if it is a case of loss of both hands or amputation at higher side or a loss of hand and a foot, then it will fall under Part I. But this is a case of amputation of one arm below'shoulder, hence this will fall under Pan II and the disablement is as shown in the medical certificate.
(3.)It is next contended by the learned counsel for the percentage of disablement must be fixed with reference to work being done by the concerned worker immediately before the accident. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinioas Sabata & Anr.1. In that case a carpenter fell down during the course of his employment and suffered injuries resulting in the amputation of his left arm, The injury was of such a nature as to cause permanent disablement and it incapacitated him from performing all work which he was capable of performing, namely that of a carpenter. In that case it was held to be a total permanent disablement. That principle is not applicable in this case. It is not shown in this case that the appellant is not in a position to work. He has prayed for alternative .job being given to" him. Hence this contention is rejected.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.