AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.P. Routray, J
1.The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. S.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. Khan, learned counsel for Respondent No.4.
Present appeal by the principal i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(IOCL) is directed against the judgment dated 18th August 2022 of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation-cum-Divisional Labour Commissioner, Berhampur, Ganjam, in E.C. Case No. 11-D of 2015, wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.25,07,770/- has been granted along with interest @12% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim application on account of the injury as Mason in the motor vehicular accident on 31st December, 2013.
Mr.D.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the injury on the workman is a scheduled injury and therefore, awarding Rs.25,07,770/- is illegal and beyond the prescribed limit.
According to the claimant he sustained injury in his right eye and he underwent operation of his eye twice. In his evidence the Claimants has never said about any complications arose out of such injuries or any disfigurement of eye ball due to such injury. It is important to reproduce relevant portion of his evidence given before the Commissioner, which is as follows:-
“xx .. xx .. During my treatment in the aforesaid hospital my right eye has been operated two times after that operation I was unable to do mason work. Now I am having pain in both my eyes. Due to financial crisis I could not visit L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital for my further treatment. Now I am not working in my previous work i.e. at Nagarjun Construction Co.Ltd. due to my poor vision… xx .. xx.”
As per scheduled 1 (part-II) of the E.C. Act, the percentage of loss of earning capacity would be 30 in such cases, i.e. for loss of vision of one eye without complications or disfigurement of eye ball. (Serial No.26).
In the instant case when no material has been produced and in absence of any specific evidence to the effect of any complications or disfigurement due to the injury in the accident in the eye, the nature injury appears to be a simple loss of vision. This is fortified from the statement of the Claimant given before learned Commissioner. Accordingly, without disturbing the finding of learned Commissioner on determination of income of the workman, which is fixed at Rs.11,000/- per month, and the age factor, the compensation amount is re-determined at Rs.3,70,062/- (i.e. Rs.6,600/- x 186.90 x 30%). The aforesaid amount is payable along with interest @ 12% per month from the date of accident.
In the result, the appeal is allowed to the above extent and the Appellant is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.3,70,062/- along with interest @12% per annum form the date of accident. Since the entire compensation amount as per direction of the Commissioner has already been deposited in the meantime, out of the same, the aforesaid amount of compensation plus interest shall be disbursed in favour of the Claimant-Respondents along with interest accrued thereon, and the balance amount along with consequential accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the Appellant. However, the penalty and penal interest @ 12% as directed by the Commissioner is waived.
It is made clear that this Court has not disturbed the direction of learned Tribunal regarding right of recovery granted in favour of the Appellant.
The copies of depositions as produced by Mr. S.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 in course of hearing are kept on record.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
……………………………………