- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the insurance Company under Section 30 of the workmen's Compensation Act, (hereinafter referred to as to Act) challenging the award dated 15th May 2000 passed by the commissioner. By the impugned award, a disabled person has been awarded a sum of rs. 2,60,292 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum treating his disability as 100%.
(2.) NO case has been made out by the appellant in the Court below in connection with the applicability of the Schedule I Part II of Section 2 (g) of the Act about disability. Such point has been raised by the appellant before this Court for the first time. The Tribunal has relied upon a four-Judge judgment of the supreme Court, in the case of Pratap Narain singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and another\ wherein it has been held as under: "5. The expression 'total disablement' has been defined in Section 2 (1) (i) of the Act as follows- (i) total disablement' means such disablement whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement. It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as a cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his finding as follows-The injured workman in this case is carpenter by profession. . . By loss of the left hand above the elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the work of carpentary cannot be done by one hand only. This is obviously a reasonableand correctfinding. Counsel torthe appellant has not been able to assail it on any ground and it does not require to be corrected in this appeal. There is also no justification for the other argument which has been advanced with reference to item 3 of Part 11 of Schedule I, because it was not the appellant's case before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm was from 8" from tip of acromion to less than 4 1/2" below the tip of olecranon. A new case cannot, therefore be allowed to be set up on facts which have not been admitted or established. "
(3.) ALTHOUGH the point was not agitated, since it is a question of law, Mr. K. S. Amist learned Counsel is allowed to make his submission. He has stated that disablement is in the nature of amputation of lower limb below the knee, therefore, there is no loss of earning capacity to the claimant. Hence, provisions of Section 2 (g) of the Act read with by Schedule I part II will be altracted in this case for 50% disablement and loss of earning capacity accordingly.;