( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2162 OF 2009 General Manager, SIPTA, MIDC, Nanded. APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Vikram Datta Ingole, R/o HUDCO, Nanded. 2. Smt. Savitribai Fule Mazdoor Sanstha, CIDCO, New Nanded, through its Chairman, C/o SIPTA Coated Steel Ltd., Nanded. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.V. Soman, advocate for the appellant. Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, advocate holding for Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, advocate for respondent No.1. ..... [CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [DATE : 20th April, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. Admit. 3. The appeal is finally heard. 4. The award in terms of section 4 of the Workmen’s ( 2 ) Compensation Act, 1923, for Rs. 40,000/-, dated 30th April, 1997 is debated by the appellant. 5. Mr. Soman, while making his submissions, pointed out the flaws that the learned Judge should have dealt with the provisions of section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to fix the liability and also in terms of section 12 (2) of the said Act, he should have observed about the indemnification. I quite see, the learned Judge should have observed to this effect. However, such mistake by itself will not raze the entire award of the learned Judge. 6. The income of the claimant – injured - provenly was Rs. 1050/- per month, not controverted by the appellant or the contractor. On the date of accident i.e. 01-10-1994, the claimant was working with the appellant – SIPTA Company, as a Machine Operator/Labour and in the process, he suffered injury due to fall of a hook on his foot. Resultantly, five fingers of his left leg were amputated. The medical record (Exh-34 and Exh-35), unequivocally established this position. The ( 3 ) learned Judge assessing the situation in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, fixed the liability to the appellant and the contractor at Rs. 40,000/-. I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the order, as it was in tune with the factor, earnings and the loss suffered by the claimant. The appeal lacks merit. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant’s right to get the amount reimbursed from the contractor in terms of section 12 (2) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 subsists. No costs. 8. In view of dismissal of the first appeal, civil application No. 5827/1997 does not survive and hence, stands dismissed accordingly. [ K. U. CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE NPJ/fa2162-09