AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellant / Non-applicant No.2 has preferred the appeal No. 858/2007 under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming the following relief :-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed with cots and the impugned judgment & award dated 02.12.2005 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Bhilwara in case W.C. NO.15/2004 (69/2002) may kindly be quashed and set aside. Any other order which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant Company."
Cross Objection has been filed by Cross-Objector / claimant praying the following relief :-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that cross-objection may kindly be allowed and award under appeal may kindly be enhanced to the extent amount claimed with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of acident till realization with costs through-out."
In the present appeal as well as the cross-objection preferred by the Insurance Company and the claimant respectively, the limited issue, which has been raised by both sides, is with regard to the disability percentage, which was being assessed at the time of passing the award in question. The disability has been assessed as 50% by the learned Tribunal, whereas the certificate issued revealed 30% disability.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that on a perusal of the injury report Exhibit-3, it is clear that all the four injuries were simple in nature and thus, the disability certificate seems to be doubtful. It is further submitted that the medical certificate has been issued by one Government Doctor, whereas it ought to have been issued by Medical Board and also Doctor concerned was not called, inspite of request of the Insurance Company, by the learned Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant, however, submitted that under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, once the Government Doctor has attributed the disability, then the same has to be believed, and the same cannot be substituted by any other opinion.
This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, finds that though looking into the injury report, the injuries are all simple in nature and 30% disability may be man formed, but this Court restricts itself from substituting the medical opinion by its own opinion. However, this Court finds that the reason given for believing the disability to be 50% in the given circumstances, is inappropriate and thus, this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the cross-objection, and allow the appeal of the Insurance Company to the extent that the disability shall be computed as 30% for grant of compensation. However, the parties, upon direction of this Court, have furnished joint computation, which reads as follows:-
1.
Age determined
22 years
2.
Income determined
4000/-
3.
Disability
30%
4.
Relevant factor for the age of 22 years
221.37
5.
Total Compensation (4000X60/100X221.37X30/100)
1,59,386/-
Thus, compensation of Rs.2,65,644/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is substituted by Rs.1,59,386 which, after necessary adjustment, shall be paid with 12% interest from the date of accident. It is needless to say that 18% interest clause stipulated in the impugned judgment stands quashed. The interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court operating in respect of disbursement of the amount stands vacated accordingly. The learned Commissioner shall disburse the amount according to the aforementioned directions, while refunding the surplus amount, if any, to the Insurance Company.
Consequently, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The cross-objection of the claimant is dismissed, as indicated above.