Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. According to the case of the workman, he was working with Laxmi Textiles, at the relevant point of time. The workman sustained personal injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of this employment with the employer on 3.12.1981. On the day of the incident, the workman had gone for work at the place of employer in the morning, He performed his duty in the factory of the employer. The employer was running a textile unit, at Bhavnagar. The workman was doing miscellaneous work in the said textile unit of the employer. On the day of the incident, as per the case of the workman, when he was on duty, under the instruction of his master, he had proceeded to mount belt on a water-pump (boring) and while doing so, another employee in the factory, one Pravinbhai, all of a sudden, switched on the motor. Consequently, the motor started and when the workman was mounting the belt, his left hand was injured and his index finger caught and got entangled in the pulley and it was crushed. Subsequently, the said co- worker, Pravinbhai, took the workman immediately to Government Civil Sir T. Hospital, at Bhavnagar for treatment. The workman was examined and treated in the said hospital, at Bhavnagar. Thereafter he was discharged on the same day. However, there was no improvement in the injury. The workman was again admitted in the hospital on 11.12.1981. He remained as an indoor patient upto 13.2.1982. in the hospital and during that period his left hand index finger was operated upon. According to the case of the workman, on account of the said accident, two phalanges of his left hand index finger have become completely useless and he sustained permanent partial disablement to the extent of 14%.Thus, according to the case of the workman, he sustained injuries and resultant permanent partial disablement on account of the accident arising out of and in the course of the employment with opponent/ employer .The workman had served the employer with a notice. The claim made in the notice was not complied. Therefore, the workman preferred an application for compensation under Section 3 of the Act and claimed an amount of Rs. 5292 with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the opponent/employer. That application was preferred on 4.3.1982.

5. Pursuant to the notice issued by the learned Commissioner, at Bhavnagar, the employer appears and resisted the application by filing written objections, at Ex. 9. Employer admitted that the workman was working as his employee at the relevant time on a monthly salary of Rs. 270/- However, he denied that the workman was doing miscellaneous work in his textile unit. The employer pleaded that the workman was engaged as a folder and his duty was to fold the cloth in the factory and he was not supposed to go outside the premises for master's work. According to his contention, the place of accident was outside the premises of the factory and, therefore, he was not liable for payment of compensation. In fact, the accident and resultant injuries were not disputed. However, it was, seriously disputed that the accident had occurred in the course of the employment with the employer. In short, it was contended that the personal injuries sustained by the workman was not a consequence of an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment with the employer. It was further stated that the water pump in question was not owned by the employer and it was outside the premises of the factory. Electricity was also not supplied to the paid water pump from the factory of the employer. The said water pump was owned by the owner of the compound in which the factory of the employer was situated. The employer further contended that the workman was never instructed to mount the belt on the water pump and, therefore, it was not a part of the duty of the workman nor he was instructed to do that work. It was also pleaded that the accident in question took place because of the negligence on the part of the workman. It was denied that the workman had sustained 14% permanent partial disablement. Thus, all the material averments made in the compensation application were seriously traversed and controverted and the entire claim for compensation was seriously challenged by the employer. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner was pleased to frame issues, at Ex. 10.

17. It was next contended by the learned Counsel Mr. Shah for the employer that the injured workman was suffering from diabetes and there is no clear evidence to show that he had sustained permanent partial disablement as alleged solely on account of the injuries sustained by him on the date of the incident. In that, it was contended that the injured workman was examined in Sir T. Hospital, at Bhavnagar, on the day of the incident and was discharged on the same day. Subsequently, he was re-admitted and he was treated as indoor patient. He has also pointed out from the evidence of Dr. Vikram Ghanshyamlal Parikh (Ex. 22) that the workman was suffering from diabetes. It is also admitted by the workman in his evidence that he was suffering from diabetes even on the day of the incident. Relying on the aforesaid facts, it is contended that there was intervening factor and the permanent partial disablement was attributable to the negligence on the part of the workman for not getting the said disease/diabetes under control. This is really an ingenious contention. It appears to be very subtle but not at all sustainable. The learned Counsel Mr. Shah for the employer has also placed reliance on the following Two English decisions:

23. Next point posed for the consideration is with regard to the quantum of compensation. It may be mentioned that the workman has claimed Rs. 3528/- by way of compensation for personal injuries and Rs. 1764/- by way of penalty. Thus, in all, he has claimed Rs. 5292/- together with interest and cost. He has claimed interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realisation.

24. In order to appreciate the aspect of quantification of the damages under the Act, it may be mentioned again that the injured workman, admittedly, was working as a workman at a monthly salary or Rs. 270/- The workmen claimed permanent partial disablement to the extent of 14%. As per the evidence on record, the workman sustained permanent partial disablement to the extent of 11%. The learned Commissioner has also believed that the workman has sustained permanent partial disablement to the extent of 11% in the waking of his left hand i.e., index finger. The workman relied on his evidence, at Ex. 11 and also on the evidence of the orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Vikram Ghanshyamlal Parikh, at Ex. 22. The medical certificate is produced, at Ex. 24. The workman was examined in the hospital on the day of the incident, i.e., on 3.12.1981, and he was discharged on the same any. But he was re-admitted in Sir T. Hospital at Bhavnagar, on 12.12.1981 and he was operated during the period of Hospitalisation and he was discharged On 13.2.1982. The workman was again examined on 20.4.1982 for the purpose of assessment of disablement percentage. The medical certificate produced at Ex.24 was issued on 20.4.1982. As per the said medical certificate, there was amputation of index finger (left) form middle of middle pnalanx with ackylosis of proximal interphelangeal joint. Mild stiffness of metacarbo phalangeal joint of index and middle finger of left hand. The orthopaedic surgeon has assessed permanent partial disablement to the extent of 11% for index finger and 2% permanent partial disablement for middle finger of the left hand. Thus, in all, the orthopaedic surgeon has assessed 13% permanent partial disablement in the left hand of the workman on account of the aforesaid injuries. However, my attention was drawn by the learned Counsel Mr. Shah for the employer to the evidence of the orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Vikram Parikh, At Ex. 22. He has pointed out that the total disablement percentage would be 9% only and not 11% as initially deposed by Dr. Vikram Parikh. This contention cannot be sustained for the reason that while considering overall evidence of the orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Vikram Parikh, it is amply clear from the evidence on record that the injured workman has sustained permanent partial disablement to the extent of 11%.