Dismissed

J.v.v.N.Ltd. v. Gurdev Singh

Rajasthan HC1 Aug 2019CMA/1432/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the employer's civil miscellaneous appeal against the Workmen Compensation Commissioner's award of Rs. 2,39,458 for an injured workman. The court held the appeal was legally untenable as it involved factual findings on disability and upheld the award for future medical expenses.

What did the court decide?

The award of Rs. 2,39,458/- is to be released with interest at 9% per annum within two months.

J.v.v.N.Ltd. Vs Gurdev Singh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1432/2009

¶3

Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Assistant Engineer, Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Gurdev Singh s/o Shri Sohan Singh, Ex-Wireman II, r/o 92, Mukharjee Nagar, Sri Ganganagar.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prateek Surana for Mr. Manoj Bhandari For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. Gehlot

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶10

Judgment

¶11

01/08/2019

¶12

The appellant assails the award dated 22.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, Sriganganar, whereby a sum of Rs.2,39,458/- was awarded to the workman, who has suffered injuries while working on 33 KV Sub-Station, Gharsana.

¶13

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant firstly is that they were not able to contest the claim on account of their officer not appearing, against whom they have taken departmental action.

¶14

Second submission on merits is that the amputation of leg has been caused after a period of six years. In the meanwhile, the workman had already attained superannuation from the services, after rejoining the duties and after undergoing treatment

¶15

(2 of 6)

¶16

[CMA-1432/2009]

¶17

from the date he suffered the accident. This way he had put in three years of service, and it is after two years further that he preferred claim stating that the injury had resulted in the amputation of his leg. However, no proof has been submitted in this regard. Thus, learned counsel submits that the award dated 22.07.2008 deserves to be set aside.

¶18

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondentworkman has raised a preliminary objection that in terms of Section 30, the appeal would lie only with regard to any question of law which may arise, and further he submits that the compensation was required to be paid to the claimant/workman as soon as the accident had taken place, which was not paid in terms of Section 4-A of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. He submits that the injury resulted in gangrene which further resulted in amputation of leg.

¶19

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶20

It is noticed that after the claim was filed, notices were served upon the appellant, they have also filed their reply on 13.03.2007 before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and contested the case.

¶21

The documents regarding the medical treatment have been filed before the concerned court, and on the day when the workman suffered accident, the treating doctor while issuing the discharge slip has diagnosed 35% disability caused due to electric burns.

¶22

In the indoor ticket, it is seen that excessive burns about 37% are on the upper part of the body. However, no reasons have come forward from the reply as to why the

¶23

(3 of 6)

¶24

[CMA-1432/2009]

¶25

compensation was not paid to the workman, with regard to the injuries caused on 07.10.2000, in terms of Section 4-A.

¶26

The subsequent claim preferred by the workman, which has resulted in the present impugned award takes into its consideration the aftermath of the accident, which resulted in causing gangrene of his lower limb and subsequent amputation of the leg. Thus, the Commissioner has, after taking into consideration the injuries caused, calculated the amount and awarded a sum of Rs.2,39,458/ only.

¶27

In MACD 2019(1) (SC) 19, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha , the Supreme Court examined the scope of an appeal preferred against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act and held as under:

¶28

“9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact that, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffer any bodily injury or dies during the

¶29

(4 of 6)

¶30

[CMA-1432/2009]

¶31

course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act.

¶32

10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.

¶33

11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lie only against the specific orders set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question of law.

¶34

12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a Regular First Appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case.”

¶35

This Court notices that similar view was earlier taken by the Supreme Court in 2017 ACJ 1, Golla Rajanna & Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., and while examining the provisions of Section 30 of the Act, held as under:-

¶36

“10. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage of permanent

¶37

(5 of 6)

¶38

[CMA-1432/2009]

¶39

disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioner. There is no case for the respondents that the doctor who issued the disability certificate is not a qualified medical practitioner, as defined under the Act. Thus, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has passed the order based on the certificate of disability issued by the doctor and which has been duly proved before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

¶40

11. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.”

¶41

In 2019(9) SCALE, Parminder Singh Vs. New India

¶42

Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors ., after taking into consideration, the various aspects relating to injuries caused and further surgeries, the Court, apart from awarding claim, also awarded amount for future medical expenses with interest @ 9%. The Apex Court has recognized the future treatment, which may occur on account of disability caused due to accident.

¶43

In view thereof, the submission of learned counsel that because the workman had retired and the amputation occurred after his retirement, the claim could not have been awarded, is found to be without merit, as a person who has suffered injuries while in service which continued and resulted in amputation or

¶44

(6 of 6)

¶45

[CMA-1432/2009]

¶46

further sufferings would be entitled to get amount for future medical expenses as well as repeated hospitalizations as held in Parminder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors . (supra) . 14. Taking into consideration the meagre amount of Rs.2,39,458/-, which has been awarded and which was not even sufficient in the opinion of this Court for the original injuries caused at that relevant time of the accident, no interference in the award is warranted. The appeal is found to be devoid of merit.

¶47

Similarly, however, as no cross appeal has been preferred, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enhance the award, but at the same time, the appeal is dismissed.

¶48

It is informed that the amount has not been paid to the workman. The same shall now be released. However, the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum, to be paid within a period of two months, failing which the respondent shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings before this Court.

¶49

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶50

22-SKant/-

J.v.v.N.Ltd. v. Gurdev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.v.v.N.Ltd. v. Gurdev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chambel Vikas Yantrik Sinchai Vs State and Ors.

Phool Singh Dhakar Vs State Personal Depors

Ravindra Malik Son of Jaipal Vs State of Rajasthan

Satnam Singh Vs Hardip Singh

Smt.Jhamku Vs Mst.Khayali

Kanhaiya Lal Dangi Vs Smt.Munni Devi and Ors.