Manager, North Chandameta Colliery Parasia vs Basanti Bai

B.C. Varma, J.—This is an appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act.

The respondent/workmen sustained injury in her left wrist daring the course of her employment. As a result of that injury the wrist movement was restricted. She was, therefore, offered by the employer viz., Manager North Chandameta Colliery, Parasia/appellant Rs. 1,176/- that payment did not satisfy her. She, therefore, preferred a claim before the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation Jabalpur. The Commissioner recorded some evidence including that of Doctor Vasudeo who opined that there is partial permanent disablement and there is some restriction in the movement of the wrist. It was found that she was paid Rs. 520/- per month. On this basis, the loss of earning capacity assessed was at 25% and the Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 7,560/- as compensation payable to the respondent/workmen. Taking a sum of Rs. 1,176/- already paid to her on this count, the Commissioner awarded Rs. 6,384/-.

After going through the record, I am of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is only on assessment of evidence on record that the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the movement of the injured wrist of the workmen is restricted. According to the doctor, the disablement was permanent. In this behalf, the Commissioner has chosen to rely upon the evidence adduced by the workmen in preference to that of employer/appellant. Such a finding cannot be disturbed in this appeal which can be entertained only op certain question of Jaw. The finding as to the monthly emoluments of the workmen also cannot be assailed as it is based on the available record. I am not prepared to accept the contention that Dr. Vasudeo could not opine as to loss of earning capacity. Apparently, the partial disablement has resulted in the loss of earning capacity and the Commissioner committed no error in assessing that loss at 25%.

For the aforesaid reasons I find no infirmity in this appeal which has to be dismissed.

The respondent has filed an application alleging that the certified copy filed with the memo of appeal is the one which the appellant obtained from the respondent and thus it cannot be said that the appellant spent any time in obtaining the copy of the order for filing the appeal. It is, therefore, urged that the time required to obtain that copy should not be excluded in completing the period of limitation for filing the appeal. It is, therefore, urged that the appeal be dismissed as barred by time. This contention most be rejected on the two Division Bench authorities in Purshattam Narayan Vs. Sugan Chand Pannalal and Others, and in Union of India through General Manager, S.E. Rly. Calcutta v. Ibrahim Gulaba, Tobacco Merchant,Durg 1965 MPLJ 572 where it has been laid down that time to be excluded u/s 12(2) of the Limitation Act relates to copies which are actually filed with the appeal and it is immaterial who obtained those copies. Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act intends to exclude the time spent in obtaining that particular copy which is filed with the memorandum of appeal. In this view the objection so raised by the respondent is rejected.

The appeal fails and is dismissed. Since the respondent was not represented before the Court at the time of hearing, there shall be no order as to costs of this appeal.