Balwant Singh vs General Manager, South Eastern Railway

C.P. Sen, J.—This is an appeal by the claimant u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, against the dismissal of his claim by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation.

The Appellant was working as a Shunter in the loco-shed at Shahdol in South Eastern Railway. On 24.2.1976 the Appellant slipped from the footboard of the engine and sustained lacerated wound on his right leg. This injury was caused in the course of his employment and this is not disputed. The Appellant was admitted in the railway hospital for treatment and he was discharged on 9.3.1976 and thereafter resumed his duties. After sometime, he reported sick on 21.2.1977. He was examined in the railway hospital and he was sent to Garden Reach Hospital for further treatment. Cancer was detected in his right leg which was amputated on 5.4.1977 just below the waist. The Appellant filed an application for compensation alleging that the amputation of his right leg was the direct result of the injury sustained by him on 24.2.1976, although he was declared fit and he resumed his duties from 10.3.1976. The wound did not heal up and so he was given light work. The wound became more acute as time passed ultimately resulting in amputation of his right leg. The claim was opposed by the railway saying that it is barred by limitation as the application for compensation has been filed 2 years after the accident. An ex parte award was given as the railway failed to appear at the earlier stages and by order dated 13.10.1981 in Misc. F. Appeal No. 141 of 1979 the ex parte award was set aside and the case was remitted for fresh trial. It was observed that the cause of action actually arose on 24.2.1976 though the fact that due to amputation of the right leg the claimant could not make the claim earlier may be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Thereafter, the present order was passed dismissing the claim on the grounds (i) that it is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose on 24.2.1976 and not on 5.4.1977 when the leg was amputated and there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay and (ii) the amputation of the right leg has no bearing with the injury sustained by the claimant arising out of and in the course of the employment on 24.2.1976.

After having heard the parties, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The Appellant did sustain injury arising out of and in the course of his employment on 24.2.1976 but this was on the lower part of the right leg and he was treated in the railway hospital. He was discharged on 9.3.1976 after being declared fit and he resumed his duties from the next day. There is nothing on record to show that the Appellant''s wound did not heal up and it became more and more acute day by day. On the other hand, it appears that the Appellant was again examined on 28.6.1976 when he was found fit in A-one condition. However thereafter the Appellant again fell sick on 21.2.1977 and he was sent for further treatment in the Garden Reach Hospital and cancer was detected in his right leg which had to be amputated on 5.4.1977. This was just below the waist while the earlier injury was on the lower part of the right leg. Evidently, therefore, the earlier injury has no connection with the amputation of the right leg. It may be that the Appellant got infection of cancer even earlier to his injury dated 24.2.1976.

With the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.