Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
O.I.C.Ltd vs Rajmal And Anr on 24 March, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1967/2012
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional
Manager, Bhansali Towers, Residency Road, Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajmal son of Shri Pyachand Khatik, Resident of
Dadabadi, Bhilwara, Near Sidh-Vinayak Hospital, District
Bhilwara
... Claimant
2. Bhagwati Prasad son of Shri Devi Lal Balai, Resident of
Balai Mohalla, Mahuwa Khurd, Police Station Banera,
District Bhilwara
... Employer
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. L.D. Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Ojha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
24/03/2021
The present appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of
the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 by the appellant -
insurance company against the Judgment and Award dated
15.06.2012 passed by the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner, Bhilwara in Case No. 14/2008 vide which a total
sum of Rs. 2,01,810/- was awarded as compensation in favour of
the respondent-claimant on account of injuries suffered by him in
the accident which occurred during his employment under the
respondent-employer on 09.11.2007.
(2 of 3) [CMA-1967/2012]
The injuries were sustained by the respondent-claimant in
the present case during the course of and in furtherance of his
employment with the respondent No. 2.
The Commissioner after framing the issues, evaluating the
evidence available on record and hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, decided the claim petition awarding a total sum of
Rs. 2,01,810/- inclusive of interest in favour of the respondent-
claimant.
Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company
submits that the Commissioner awarded an exorbitant amount
merely on account of thumb injury suffered by the respondent-
claimant. He further submits that no reasoning was given by the
Commissioner while recording the findings that the respondent-
claimant would be unable to perform the work of driver on account
of the injuries suffered. He further submits that looking to the
injury suffered by the respondent-claimant, the amount awarded
as compensation was on extremely higher side. He, therefore,
prays that the amount of compensation awarded by the
Commissioner may be reduced suitably.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant
submits that the Commissioner after taking into consideration the
percentage of permanent disability suffered by him rightly passed
the judgment impugned herein awarding reasonable amount of
compensation in favour of the claimant. He further submits that
on account of injuries suffered by the claimant during the
employment of the respondent-employer, the respondent-claimant
has virtually become redundant in performing his duties. He,
therefore, submits that no interference in the judgment and award
(3 of 3) [CMA-1967/2012]
dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Commissioner is warranted by
this Court.
I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and
gone through the judgment and award impugned dated
15.06.2012 as well as relevant record of the case.
The finding recorded by the Commissioner that on account of
the thumb injury suffered by the respondent-claimant in the
accident which occurred during the course of his employment on
09.11.2007, he became unable to drive the vehicle, therefore, his
disability was rightly assessed at 30%. Since the respondent-
claimant was a low paid employee and the only source of his
income was driving the vehicle and on account of the injury
aforesaid, he is unable to perform his work, this Court feels that
the compensation awarded in the present case is 'just
compensation'. It is also noted that the amount of compensation
awarded by the Commissioner vide its Judgment and Award dated
15.06.2012 has already been disbursed to the respondent-
claimant and since the respondent-claimant belongs from the
lowest strata of the society, it will be quite harsh to take any other
view in the present set of facts.
Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
148-Inder/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
