AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Sunil Gaur, J.(Oral)—C.M.No.29133/2016 (Exemption)
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
C.M.No.29136/2016 (delay in re-filing)
There is delay of 17 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
FAO 382/2016 & C.Ms.No.29134-35/16 (Stay & delay)
The present appeal is accompanied by a Certificate issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under the Employee�s Compensation Act, 1923 to the effect that awarded compensation amount has been deposited by the appellant.
The factual background of this case is already noticed in the impugned order and for this reason, it is not recapitulated in this judgment.
Impugned order of 10th February, 2016 grants compensation of Rs. 5 lacs odd with interest on account of respondent-injured suffering 70% disability due to amputation of her left hand due to this accident. The challenge to the impugned order in this appeal is on the ground that there was a wilful negligence on the part of respondent-injured as she was wearing metallic bangles while she was washing Dei Roller machine.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that apart from medical expenses, the respondent-injured has been already compensated to the tune of Rs. 78,000/- odd.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order and copy of the evidence on record, I find that in the face of evidence on record, it cannot be said that there was any wilful negligence on the part of respondent-injured. It is being so said because respondent-injured in her evidence has categorically stated that she was wearing glass bangles, which had got stuck in the machine and respondent-injured has denied the suggestion that there was any direction to take off the bangles or rings while cleaning the Dei Roller machine. Respondent-injured has also denied in her evidence that any safety guidance was displayed by the appellant in the factory. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any wilful negligence on the part of respondent-injured.
Payment of compensation of Rs. 78,000/- and medical expenses is no substitute for the 70% disability suffered by respondent-injured. Loosing of one hand is a shattering experience, which respondent-injured has undergone and this disability greatly diminished the chances of her re-employment and of her enjoying the life.
In such a situation, grant of compensation of Rs. 5 lacs odd cannot be said to be unreasonable or exorbitant. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and thus there is no merit in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal and the applications are dismissed.