Delhi High Court
Rajesh Dang And Anr vs Brij Mohan on 6 March, 2018
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 06.03.2018
+ FAO 165/2017 & CM APPL. 10805/2017
RAJESH DANG AND ANR
..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
Versus
BRIJ MOHAN
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Anubha Kaushal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J (Oral)
The appellants impugn an order dated 08.02.2017 awarding an
amount of Rs. 1,27,711/- in favour of the respondent for the injury suffered
by him during the course of employment.
It is the respondents' case that he used to work for the appellants at
his 'power-press' machine at monthly wages of Rs. 9,000/-. On 11.12.2014,
while operating the said machine, suddenly its brakes malfunctioned due to
which three fingers of his right hand were badly crushed leading to
permanent disablement of 16%. The workman had sought compensation for
100% disability. The appellant had denied the employment of the workman.
However, he admitted that the workman used to work for him on daily
wages basis now and then, but he was not employed on the day when the
accident occurred. It is the appellant's case that there is no proof that the
accident happened on his machine while the respondent was employed.
Since, there was no medical certificate, no complaint or document of
medication or otherwise to show that the accident happened on the said date,
the Court would note that the serious injury of the nature which the
workman suffered needed immediate medical attention. Such an injured
workman while in a state of excruciating pain, shock and resultant melee for
immediate medical care, would also be haunted by the fear of his future
employability, with his present employer or for that matter, anywhere else.
It is not denied that the appellant had himself taken the respondent for
medical treatment. If the injury was because of the workman's
employment/discharging duties on some else machine, then the outmen of
the latter machine would have taken immediate corrective measures,
provisions of medical assistance, etc. If the workman was a casual
employee rendering his services to the appellant occasionally and not
injured while working on the appellant's machine, then there was no reason
why he was taken by the appellant to medical treatment. The inference to be
drawn is that he was a workman on the machine in the employment of the
appellant. If the workman was injured elsewhere then the alternative theory
ought to have been set up by the appellant. Mere denial of injury on his
machine is not enough. The reasoning and conclusion in the impugned order
cannot be faulted.
The Court would note that the injured workman does mention four
other workmen who were working on the appellant's machines when the
injury happened. They may all have been casual labourers but for fear of
losing their temporary employment with the appellant, they may not have
had the courage or been ready to support the injured workman's case. It is
also possible that because of ignorance, poverty and lack of proper legal
advice in such exigency, the injured workman may not have kept proof of
injury or medical certificate or any medication taken by him pursuant to the
injury.
What emerges from the aforesaid is that an accident happened on
11.12.2014, the appellant took the injured workman for medical treatment.
A legal notice was sent which was not responded to. The workman was
employed by the appellant now and then, therefore, he was deemed to be
employee of the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be
faulted. It is submitted that the appellant had sought compensation as his
working capacity got decreased by 9% due to injury and limited his claim to
Rs. 71,712/-. The said argument is fallacious and untenable, because what is
to be awarded as compensation to a workman is specified in the Schedule to
the Act. The Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi has certified that
the workman has suffered 16% permanent disability (amputation of fingers
of right hand). It is this percentage of disability which was considered in the
impugned order, while computing the loss of earning capacity bearing in
mind his monthly wage and his age of 46 years. Accordingly, an amount of
Rs. 1,27,711/- has been awarded alongwith interest @12% p.a.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the rate of interest
of 12% p.a. for the years 2016 and 2017 on the compensation amount in on
the higher side. It is true that the rate of interest on fixed deposits has
reduced in the past couple of years. In the circumstances, the rate of interest
on the compensation amount is reduced to 11%.
The amount deposited with this Court be released to the respondent
into his bank account maintained at a place near his residence. The excess
amount of the interest shall be refunded to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed-off in the above terms.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
MARCH 06, 2018
RW
