Chakravartti, C.J. - (1.) This is an employer's appeal against a decision by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, by which he awarded a sum of Rs. 1680/- to the respondent workman on the ground of his having suffered a permanent and partial disability in the course of his employment under the appellant. Only two grounds have been urged by Mr. Das Gupta in support of the appeal. He has contended that the respondent's claim was barred by limitation and in the second place that, in any event, the employer should have been given credit for the full salary which he had paid to the respondent even after the disability had occurred and his capacity for full service been reduced.
(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The respondent, Bhupati Chatterjee, was employed as a machineman under the appellant, the Proprietor of the Satyajuga Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., who used to publish a newspaper and maintain a printing establishment. On 19-7-1951, the respondent's right hand got caught in the printing machine and as a result of that accident, he suffered an injury. The hand was examined by a doctor on behalf of the appellant and another doctor on behalf of the respondent himself. It appears that the fingers of the hand are now in a flexed condition owing to an injury suffered by the tendons and nerves. The thumb, the index finger and the middle finger have lost their functional power. Movements at the wrist are painful and the grip is imperfect and deficient. Both doctors have agreed that the respondent has suffered a permanent and partial disability, but while the respondent's doctor put the measure of disability at fifty per cent., the appellant's doctor put it at forty percent. The learned Commissioner has adopted the estimate of the appellant's doctor and consequently the appellant can have no grievance on that score.
(3.) What, however, is said on behalf of the appellant is this. After he had suffered the accident, the respondent was absent for some time, but then he returned to work and continued to serve the appellant till 31-8-1953, when the establishment was closed down. During this period the respondent was given light work, but he was allowed to draw his full pay. The accident as I have already stated, happened on 19-7-1951, but the application for compensation was not made till 13-10-1953. In view of those dates, it has been contended that the respondent's application was liable to be thrown out as time-barred, inasmuch as the had not preferred his claim within one year of the occurrence of the accident and had no sufficient cause for not doing so.;