The High Court dismissed an appeal against an order under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner had awarded compensation to a minor who lost a hand in an accident while working for the appellant. The court upheld the finding of an employer-employee relationship based on witness testimonies.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
**FAO No. 1171 of 1992 Date of Decision: 14.10.2010. *****
Maluk Singh
.. Appellant
VS.
Suraj Mukhi
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:Mr. Devinder Sangwan, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Kundu, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent.
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
Order dated 1.4.1992 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act (for short, the Act) Circle Kurukshetra is under challenge in this appeal preferred by Maluk Singh who since has been directed by the learned Commissioner to pay a sum of Rs.34281/- as compensation along with 20% penalty and simple interest @ 6% from 3.7.1988 till realization to Suraj Mukhi respondent herein.
The facts of the case in nutshell are that Suraj Mukhi minor, through his father, filed an application under the Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, including loss of earning, expenses incurred on treatment, on account of mental shock and pain and future expenses to be incurred on further treatment, from Maluk Singh on the ground that while being in the employment of latter, his left hand up to the wrist joint was amputated during the time when he was cutting the fodder in a machine running by engine whose speed was controlled by Maluk Singh.
The stand of appellant was denial of employee-employer relationship inter se the parties and occurrence of alleged accident was also
2
disputed by him.
On the basis of evidence led by the parties, the learned Commissioner disposed of the case in the manner indicated above. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal, questioning the legal and impropriety of the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record
perused.
As per documentary as well as oral evidence on record, it is clear that on 6.3.1988 Suraj Mukhi claimant suffered amputation of his left hand up to wrist joint and as per medical evidence Ex.AW5/1 (proved by AW5 Dr. R.K. Jindal) he was aged about 16 years at the relevant time and as a result of the said amputation he suffered 50% disability. Though the appellant has disputed that at the relevant time the claimant was not under his employment and has denied the accident, but his said stand belied from the testimonies of AW1 (claimant) coupled with that of AW2 Shree Ram, who got the claimant employed with the appellant; AW3 Phool Singh who also came at the spot and witnessed the claimant in an injured condition with blood stains on the blades of cutting machine and AW4 Thakar Dass i.e. the father of the claimant. By examining RW1 Raghubir Singh, the appellant has attempted to show that the claimant was not his employee, but this witness admitted that he is an employee working with the son of the appellant and hence, no reliance can be placed upon his statement being an interested witness, as against the testimonies of independent persons examined by the claimant. No doubt, the appellant, by placing on record affidavit Ex.R1 purportedly sworn by Phool Singh (AW-3) has tried to project that the initial statement given by this witness in favour of the claimant was under pressure, but the appellant never made any request for re-summoning of this witness for further cross examination to substantiate the contents of the affidavit and RW3 Nasib Singh Notary who proved this affidavit also categorically denied having acquainted with the identity of the deponent who sworn the said affidavit. The learned Commissioner took the monthly salary of the claimant as Rs.600/- per month, but hypothetically assess the compensation to Rs.34281/- with penalty and interest, as referred to above, without discussing as to what amount was awarded under which head, but it cannot be said that on account of amputation of hand and
3
suffering of disability to the extent of 50% in the very beginning of his youth life, the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant in any way is on higher side.
There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
October 14,2010 Jiten
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Commissioner correctly found an employer-employee relationship and liability for workmen's compensation.
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded including penalty and interest is appropriate.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maluk Singh
Suraj Mukhi
Arvind Kumar
Devinder Sangwan (Advocate)
V.B. Aggarwal (Advocate)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
