AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dalip Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.
Both the grounds which have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments are covered by the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Devo v. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr. reported in 1976 ACJ 141.
The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in the facts and circumstances amputation of the leg of injured who was driving the good vehicle cannot be said to be 100% disablement in view of the provisions contained in the Schedule appended to the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
So far as the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is concerned, in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra), it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court approving the findings of the Commissioner that disablement has to be seen with reference to the work the injured was performing at the time of accident and in case the injured has become incapacitated to do the work which he was performing prior to the accident, the said disablement would be taken to be 100% disablement.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no force in the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the same are rejected.
Learned Counsel for the appellant next sought to contend that interest ought not to have been allowed by the learned Commissioner w.e.f. the date of accident.
So far as the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is concerned, in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) the Hon''ble Supreme Court in para 7 of the report has clearly dealth with the aforesaid contention and held that-
The employer therefore became liable to pay the compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the workman by the accident which admittedly arose out of an in the course of the employment....
In the light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Larger Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeals as well as the stay application accordingly stand dismissed summarily.