This single-paragraph dismissal rejected the insurance company's appeal against a Workmen's Compensation award, holding the appellant failed to demonstrate that the compensation or the loss of earning capacity was excessive. The appeal was dismissed.
The single-paragraph 'NOTORIOUS' appeal was dismissed.
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.
FAO No.501 of 2007
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.501 of 2007 Date of decision: 16.07.2013
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
......Appellant(s)
Versus
JaJpal Singh & anr. ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
Respondent No.1 filed an application for grant of compensation on the ground that he while working as a driver-cum-cleaner on truck No.HR-38-E-1997 belonging to respondent No.2, was injured. He received multiple grievous injuries and due to the aforesaid injuries suffered by him during the course of employment of respondent No.2, his right leg was permanently damaged to the extent of 25% disability.
The claim of respondent No.1 was contested.
Respondent No.2 (Employer) did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against ex parte.
However, the appellant-Insurance company appeared and filed its written statement raising objections that there was no relationship of employer and employee between respondents No.1 and 2. Further objection was raised that the injuries were not suffered during the course of employment. Various other objections were also taken.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.20 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2
FAO No.501 of 2007
framed and the claim of the application filed by respondent No.1 was allowed holding that he was entitled to compensation amounting to Rs.4,48,560/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to be paid jointly and severally by the appellant as well as respondent No.2 from the date of accident till its realization. Respondent No.2 was further held liable to pay penalty of 50% of the arrears i.e the amount of compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum in case the compensation is not paid within 30 days from the date of order.
On 5.2.2007, after considering the submissions made, this
Court passed the following order while issuing notice of motion:
Present: Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that in the instant case, the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, has given the award, which is on the higher side and not based upon the norms prescribed under the said Act.
Notice of motion for May 24, 2007.
The entire amount shall be paid to the
claimants forthwith on their furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of learned Commissioner, for the due performance of the order, which may ultimately be binding upon them(claimants).”
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.20 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
FAO No.501 of 2007
3
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
Before this Court, the argument raised is that though respondent No.1 suffered disability to the extent of 25% only yet the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Circle-I, Amritsar, vide impugned order has granted compensation to the extent of 100% and thus, the same is liable to be set aside.
However, it may be noticed that while determining compensation payable to respondent No.1, Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, has held that Jajpal-respondent No.1 had lost his 100% earning capacity and was rendered unfit for the work of driver due to disability of right leg and therefore, he was entitled to full compensation along with interest as per the formula laid down under the Act. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court as to how the aforesaid reasoning given by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is wrong.
Counsel for the appellant has also challenged the impugned order on the ground that compensation awarded is on the higher side. However, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that how the the compensation as determined by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is excessive.
No other point has been argued.
Dismissed.
July 16, 2013 ps
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.20 11:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
JaJpal Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
