Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satvir Singh and another

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—An accident occurred and the workman lost both his eyes. The workman has been awarded a total compensation of Rs. 92,703.48. Aggrieved by the award given by the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation Act, Bhiwani, the insurer has filed the present appeal. A few facts may be noticed.

The respondent was working with the Co-operative Sugar Mill, Jind. On January 20, 1986 while unloading sugarcane from the tractor trolley he was injured. He lost both his eyes. The disability was found to be 100%. He was paid an amount of Rs. 7,477/- on March 15, 1989. The amount being far below the compensation which was payable to the workman, he filed an application under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 before the Commissioner. The respondents viz. the employer and the insurance company contested the claim. It was pleaded that the claim is barred by limitation and that the workman was not, intact, on duty on the date of accident. On the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed the following two issues :-

Whether the applicant is entitled to any of the amount claimed in the claim application under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 ? If so, with what detail ?

Relief.

The respondent workman had also filed an application for condonation of delay. The Commissioner had found that there was sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the application was allowed. On merits, it was held that the workman was entitled to an amount of Rs. 57,576.75 by way of compensation. He was further held entitled to an amount of Rs. 20,727.63 by way of interest. Rs. 14,399.10 were awarded on account of penalty. Thus, he was held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 92,703.48 After adjusting the amount of Rs. 7,477/- already paid, the remaining amount had been paid. Aggrieved by the order, the insurer has filed this appeal.

Mr. D. P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that the Commissioner has erred in condoning the delay. It has been further submitted that even the amount of Rs. 57,576.75 has been wrongly awarded by way of compensation. According to the learned Counsel the total compensation which could have been awarded was Rs. 37,050/- as the workman was drawing a monthly wage of Rs. 375/- only.

After hearing counsel for the parties it appears that the workman could have filed the application by January 19, 1986. However, the employer was telling him that the matter is pending with the insurance company and that the payment shall be made. It is the admitted position that an amount of Rs. 7,477/- was paid to the workman vide cheque dated March 15, 1989. Thus, the claim of the workman that the matter was said to be pending with the insurer is borne out from the fact that the insurance company had actually made the payment of Rs. 7,477/- to the workman. It, is, undoubtedly, true that even thereafter the workman took about four months to approach the Court. However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the workman had lost both his eyes. In the very nature of things he was totally handicapped. He was dependent upon others. He would not also be aware of the niceties and technicalities of law. Consequently, some delay has taken place. However, the Commissioner, having exercised the jurisdiction to condone the delay, I do not find any error apparent on the record which may warrant interference with the view taken by him. Consequently, the first contention as raised on behalf of the appellant is rejected.

It was then contended that the workman was drawing a daily wage of Rs. 12.50. Thus, his monthly wage would work out to Rs. 375/-. If compensation was assessed on that basis, he could be entitled to a total amount of Rs. 37,000/- approximately. The Commissioner, according to the learned Counsel, had wrongly assessed the compensation at Rs. 57,576.75.

Apparently, the contention appears to be attractive. However, a perusal of the statement of Mohinder Kumar, RW-2, shows that the average wages of the workman were initially Rs. 525/- per month. Ultimately, at the time of accident he was drawing a wage of Rs. 577.50 per month. In view of this evidence the claim that the workman was only getting Rs. 375/- per month or that the Commissioner has erred in assessing the compensation at Rs. 57,576.75 cannot be sustained.

Mr. Gupta also submitted that the Insurer was not liable to pay the penalty. If that be so, the appellant may proceed against the employer to recover the amount paid to the workman on that account. However, no ground for interference with the amount awarded to the respondent is made out.

Whatever be the technicalities, the fact remains that the respondent-workman who was only 35 years old at the time of the accident had become totally blind. The amount of compensation awarded to him is hardly enough to compensate him adequately for the misery that he would suffer for the rest of his life. The order passed by the Commissioner is absolutely just and fair. It calls for no interference.

Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. It is directed that the workman shall be paid the full amount immediately.

A copy of this order shall be given Dasti to the Counsel on usual terms.