Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ishpal @ Shishpal vs The Commissioner Under The Workman'S ... on 15 March, 2024
Author: Meenakshi I. Mehta
Bench: Meenakshi I. Mehta
2024:PHHC:038012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.277 of 2001
Date of Decision: 15.03.2024
Ishpal @ Shishpal
.....Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner under the Workmen's
Compensation Act, Karnal and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Argued by:- Mr. Bharat Bhushan Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
Feeling aggrieved by the Award passed by the Commissioner
(for short 'the Competent Authority') under the Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') at Karnal on 21.08.2000, whereby the Claim
Application moved by the appellant-claimant (here-in-after to be referred
as 'the claimant') for seeking the compensation on account of his having
suffered the injuries, has been dismissed, he (claimant) has chosen to prefer
the instant appeal to lay challenge to the same.
2. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts, as emanating from
the perusal of the record and culminating in the filing of the present appeal,
are that the claimant filed a Claim Application for seeking compensation to
the tune of Rs.(03) three lac from respondent No.2, while averring that he
had been engaged by the said respondent as the labourer to help the Mason
FAO No.277 of 2001 -2- 2024:PHHC:038012
in the construction of his (respondent No.2's) shop. On 30.05.1996, when
he (claimant) was going upstairs to fetch some material lying on the roof of
the second storey of the building, he fell down and sustained injuries on his
left leg and arm which left him crippled. Respondent No.2 filed his written-
statement, contesting the claim of the claimant therein, on various grounds.
Then, the parties had been put to the trial by framing the issues and after
appreciating and evaluating the evidence as led by them on the record and
hearing their respective counsel, the Competent Authority dismissed the
above-referred Claim Application, as already indicated in the opening para
of this judgment.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-claimant in the
instant appeal and have also perused the record carefully.
4. Learned counsel for the claimant has contended that the
claimant had suffered the permanent disability due to the multiple grievous
injuries, as sustained by him in the afore-said incident but the Competent
Authority did not appreciate this fact in the right perspective and wrongly
dismissed his Claim Application vide the impugned Award and in these
circumstances, it becomes quite explicit that the said Award is not legally
sustainable and hence, the same deserves to be set-aside.
5. However, the above-raised contention is devoid of any force
because Section 3 of the Act speaks about the liability of the employer to
pay compensation to the workman, in the eventualities as described therein
and Section 4 thereof provides for the method/mode for the quantification
of the amount of compensation, as payable in the case of the death of the
FAO No.277 of 2001 -3- 2024:PHHC:038012
workman or his total or partial permanent disablement, due to the injury
suffered by him in the accident arising out of and in the course of his
employment. Exhibit P4 is the copy of the Medical-Certificate, as issued to
the claimant wherein his disability is shown to have been assessed by the
Medical-Board as 04% only, because of the shortening of his left lower
limb by one (01) inch. Concededly, the afore-said injury has neither been
specified in Part I nor in Part II of Schedule I, as appended to the Act. It
being so, Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act becomes applicable to the present
case which reads as under:-
"4(1) - Subject to the provisions of this Act, the
amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:-
(c) Where permanent partial disablement
results from the injury,
(ii) in the case of an injury not specified in
Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation
payable in the case of permanent total disablement
as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity (as
assessed by the qualified medical practitioner)
permanently caused by the injury."
A bare reading of the above-quoted provisions makes it crystal
clear that for claiming the compensation on the score of his afore-certified
disability, the claimant was required/supposed to adduce the evidence so as
to prove/establish the extent/percentage of the loss of his earning capacity,
as duly assessed by the qualified medical practitioner, on account of the
injury sustained by him and resulting in his above-assessed disablement but
however, he (claimant) did not lead even an iota of evidence on the record
FAO No.277 of 2001 -4- 2024:PHHC:038012
in this regard and rather, while appearing before the Competent Authority
as AW1, he disclosed his occupation as 'labourer', meaning thereby that
even after suffering the afore-referred disability, he had been working as a
labourer as he had been doing prior thereto.
6. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
impugned Award does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity
or perversity so as to warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly,
the same is, hereby, upheld and the appeal in hand, being sans any merit,
stands dismissed.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
th
March 15 , 2024 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
