Delhi High Court
Satish Saw Mill vs Shambhu Mahto on 11 November, 2016
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 11th November, 2016
+ FAO 223/2011
SATISH SAW MILL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Malhotra, Advocate
Versus
SHAMBHU MAHTO ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Triloki Pandit, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 17th February,
2011, whereby the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation
awarded compensation of Rs.2,03,980/- along with interest @ 12%
per annum to respondent No.1.
2. On 24th May, 2000 at about 07:00 p.m., respondent No.1's left
hand was stuck in a saw machine which resulted in 71% permanent
disability to the left hand of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed
an application for compensation before the Commissioner,
Workmen's Compensation.
3. The petitioner contested the claim of respondent No.1 on the
ground that respondent No.1 was employed as labour-cum-rickshaw
puller and he had worked at the saw machine against the express
instructions of the petitioner not to work there.
4. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation held that the
accident arose out of and in the course of employment of respondent
No.1 under the petitioner. The Commissioner held the permanent
impairment of respondent No.1 with respect to left upper limb to be
71% as per the certificate issued by All India Institute of Medical
Sciences. The Commissioner determined the compensation of
Rs.2,03,980/- payable to respondent No.1.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing of
the appeal that the accident did not occur in the course of employment
as respondent No.1 was a rickshaw puller and was not authorised to
work on the saw machine. The submission of learned counsel for the
appellant does not pass the test of judicial belief under Section 3 of the
Indian Evidence Act. The statement made by a witness has to pass the
test of judicial belief. Reference may be made to the principles
relating to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act in Ved Prakash
Kharbanda v. Vimal Bindal, 198 (2013) DLT 555. It is not
believable that an employee would work on a hazardous machine
against the instructions of the employer.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the
compensation awarded to respondent No.1 is on a higher side. It is
submitted that the permanent disability of respondent No.1 be reduced
from 71% to 30%.
7. Respondent No.1 is present in Court and his condition has been
seen. This Court is satisfied that the permanent disability of
respondent No.1 has been rightly taken by the Commissioner as 71%.
8. There is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
9. The appellant has deposited the principal award amount with
the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation out of which 50% has
been released to respondent No.1 in terms of order dated 04th May,
2011 and the balance amount is lying with the Commissioner,
Employee's Compensation. The Commissioner, Employee's
Compensation is directed to release the balance awarded amount to
respondent No.1 by transferring the same to his savings bank account
by instructing their bank to transfer the said amount to the bank
account of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 shall furnish the
particulars of his savings bank account to Commissioner, Employee's
Compensation.
10. The petitioner shall deposit the balance amount with the
Commissioner, Employee's Compensation within a period of four
weeks from today. The amount already deposited by the appellant
shall be first adjusted against the interest as on the date of deposit and
then towards the principal. On the deposit being made, the
Commissioner, Employee's Compensation shall disburse the same to
respondent No.1 by directing the concerned bank to keep the said
amount in 5 FDRs of equal amount for the periods 6 months, 1 year,
1½ years, 2 years and 2½ years.
11. The monthly interest on the FDRs of the respondent No.1 shall
be credited to his savings bank accounts.
12. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be
credited in the savings bank account of respondent No.1.
13. All the original FDRs shall be retained by bank. However, the
photocopies of the same shall be provided to respondent No.1.
14. No cheque book or debit card be issued to the
claimant/respondent No.1 without permission of this Court.
15. No loan or advance or pre-mature discharge shall be permitted
without the permission of this Court.
16. Respondent No.1 shall approach the Commissioner,
Employee's Compensation bank for completing the formalities for the
disbursement of the award amount in terms of this order.
17. Respondent No.1 is at liberty to approach this Court for release
of further amount in case of any financial exigency.
18. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsels for the parties
under signatures of the Court Master.
NOVEMBER 11, 2016 J.R. MIDHA, J.
rsk
