Madras High Court
C. Muniswamy vs T. Rajamoorthy on 5 August, 1987
Equivalent citations: (1994)IIILLJ210MAD
JUDGMENT P.K. Sethuraman, J.
1. This appeal coming for hearing on this day upon perusing the petition of appeal, the order of the lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. R.K. Ravindran for M/s. V. Natarajan and Nicholas, Advocates for the applicant and of Mr. T. Dhanyakumar, Advocate for the respondent the Court made the following order:
The appellant-workman is the appellant. The appeal is against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Salem, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant for compensation for the injury received by him during and in the course of employment under the respondent. The appellant filed the application stating that he received an injury, namely, the loss of his fingers while he was employed by the respondent for feeding the harvested paddy crop into the machine and he lost his fingers while he was feeding the harvested paddy crop into the thrashing machine. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 6,000/- on the basis that he was given a monthly wage of Rs. 150/-.
2. The application was resisted by the opposite party (the respondent herein) stating that the appellant was not under his employment and he did not suffer any injury in any accident during and in the course of employment by him and he was not liable for the compensation claimed.
3. Before the Commissioner for workmen's compensation the appellant, his sister and another Karuppan had been examined.The opposite party and a driver by name Mani of the machine had been examined on behalf of the opposite party. The Commissioner, in his order, held that there was an accident resulting in the loss of two fingers of the appellant, but the appellant failed to prove the employment under the opposite party and therefore, the claim was negatived and the petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.
4. The short point that arises for consideration in the appeal is as to whether the appellant sustained the injury during and in the course of the employment under the opposite party.
5. It is seen that the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 24.3.1980 and the workman is shown to have sent the notice claiming compensation and the copy of the notice had been marked as Ex.A-2. Therein it has been mentioned that the workman was employed under the opposite party and that when he was engaged in the work of feeding the paddy crop in the machine he had suffered the injury. For the said notice, the opposite party had sent a reply through counsel, marked as Exhibit A-3. In that reply the opposite party has totally denied the employment and has also stated that he had not known about the accident, but he had heard about it. In the counter also, the opposite party had taken up a similar stand. But, it is to be seen from the evidence of one Mani, who was the person operating the thrashing machine, that the machine, which belonged to one Thirumalisamy Reddiar, who hired on 24-3-1980 and at about 10 P.M., there was no power supply and so the machine stopped working and none came to work on the machine. It is also to be seen that he has stated that one Sekhar hired that machine. But, later in the chief-examination itself he has come forward to say that there was supply of electricity and he did not know how the workman sustained the injury, and according to him, he heard the alarm raised and he came and stopped the machine. He has also stated that the opposite party happened to be present at the time of the accident and he went to the pumpset room. The opposite party in his evidence, though stated that he had not taken the machine on hire and the appellant was not his workman has also stated that he did not come to work that day, and the appellant who came there unexpectedly had suffered the injury. Therefore, it is clear that the opposite party as well as the driver of the machine, though they mention about injury sustained by the appellant, have not come forward to say as to in what manner the occurrence took place. One fails to understand as to why a person who had nothing to do with the machine and who was not expected to be there would come and insert his hand to suffer an injury so as to lose his fingers. In support of his version, the appellant-workman has examined his own sister, whose evidence was characterised by the Commissioner as interested testimony and the Commissioner had also pointed out that there was no document produced to establish the employment of the appellant. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant, normally there would be no document in cases of such employment. The workman, immediately after the injury, is shown to have been taken to the Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry, and the discharge slip of the Jimper Hospital, marked as Ex.A-1, clearly discloses that the injury was alleged to have been sustained while feeding the grain into the thrashing machine. Therefore, I have no hesitation in accepting the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellant that the appellant suffered the injury during and in the course of employment by the opposite party.
6. Having regard to the evidence of the workman regarding the wages at Rs. 150/-per mensem, and also loss of the fingers, as per Schedule I, Part II Serial No. 9, for loss of the two fingers of one hand, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is 20 per cent. As per Schedule IV, the compensation payable for cent per cent is Rs. 18,900/-. Accordingly 20 per cent works out to Rs. 3,780/-. So the appellant will be entitled to Rs. 3,780/- and not Rs. 6,000/-as claimed by him.
7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, granting the appellant a compensation of Rs. 3,780/-. The respondent (opposite party) is directed to pay the costs of the appellant throughout in proportion to the amount of compensation granted. Counsel for the respondent submits that suitable instructions will be given to the respondent to deposit the amount before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Counsel for the appellant makes a request that it may be directed to be paid to the appellant directly. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent shall pay the amount within one month from this date to the appellant directly under proper receipt.