IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINIIAL. A.O. No. 374 of 2004 Zila Prabandhak, Door Sanchar, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. .. Appellant. Vs. Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation/ District Magistrate and another.. Respondents. Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the appellant. Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate for the claimant/respondent No.2. Dated: 20th Mary, 2008 Hon’be B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26-8-2003, passed by Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Pithoragarh in W.C.C. No. 17/2000. 2- Brief facts of the case are that Vishnu Dutt Bhatt has preferred a petition for compensation on the ground that he was employed as casual labour in Sanchar Nigam Pithoragarh. On 6-9-1997 when he was pulling telephone-wire near Punera Petrol Pump the wire suddenly dashed against electric line and the petitioner was seriously wounded by the electric current. He was admitted in Dharchula Hospital. Thereafter he was admitted in District Hospital, Pithoragarh and he was treated there. The applicant at the time of accident was 28 years of age and he was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 15,00/-. The Department did not pay any compensation to the applicant, hence the petition was filed. 2 3- The Opposite Parties filed objection against the petition and denied the allegations made in the petition. The opposite parties also alleged that the claimant was not a casual labour in the Department. He was labour of the contractor, hence the petition against the Department is not maintainable. 4- The learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate (hereinafter referred as ‘The Commissioner’) framed issues in the petition. The claimant in support of his case adduced evidence before the Commissioner. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence. The case was heard exparte against the opposite parties. The learned Commissioner allowed the petition for compensation of Rs. 79,421-25P. along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of present of petition, i.e. 29.6.2000 till the date of actual payment against Opposite Party No.2, Zila Prabandhak, Door Sanchar, Almora. 5- Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 6- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7- The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and award by raising the submission before me that the claimant/respondent was not working as casual labour in the Department and the learned Commissioner has committed an error holding that the claimant was injured during the course of his employment. He also asserted that the learned Commissioner without any authenticate record before it wrongly assessed the monthly income of the injured as 3 Rs. 1,500/- per month. It is also argued that no opportunity of evidence was afforded to the opposite party/appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be quashed. 8- The learned counsel for the respondent/injured has opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and contended that the learned Commissioner has passed a just award based on material on record. 9- From perusal of record it reveals that the Opposite Party/appellant has not specifically denied the factum of injuries sustained by the claimant by electric current. So far as the employment of the claimant/injured as a casual labour in Door Sanchar is concerned, Vishnu Dutt Bhatt, claimant has produced himself as P.W.1 and has deposed that he was working as casual labour in Door Sanchar, and at the relevant time he was posted in Tehsil Dharchula. He was getting Rs. 50/- per day as labour charges. On 6-9-97, at about 2.30 P.M. he was pulling telephone-wire near Punera Petrol Pump. The departmental official Shiv Singh and Tiwari were also with him. When they were crossing to pull telephone wire, the wire touched the electric line and due to the electric current his right hand was burnt and was admitted in the Hospital. This witness was cross-examined by Opposite Party No.1 and he has emphatically denied the suggestion that he was not casual labour in the Door Sanchar Department. There is paper No. 14-B/4 on record, which is a certificate in original, issued by Incharge, Telephone, Center Tothi, Pithoragarh, and in this document it has been certified that Vishnu Dutt Bhatt has worked in Door Sanchar from 1988 to 1997. Dr. K.S. Mehta P.W.3, has deposed 4 that the claimant remained admitted in District Hospital, Pithoragarh from 7-9-97 to 6-10-97 due to electric burn injuries. This witness further stated that the injured was permanently disabled upto the extent of 52%. The disability certificate paper No. 5-A/4 has been filed on record. 10- The another important piece of evidence on record, is copy of G.D. paper No. 5-A/2. The S.S.I Lokesh Kumar Sharma has mentioned this fact in the said G.D. dated 6-9-97 that the claimant, a casual labour in Telephone Department, was injured due to electric current while he was pulling telephone wire and he was admitted in Primary Health Center Dharchula. Sri Shiv Singh and Sri Tiwari, the companions of Vishnu Dutt were also present with him. To rebut the aforesaid documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by the claimant/injured, the Opposite Party did not adduce any evidence before the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner has noted this fact in his judgment that inspite of opportunities given to the Opposite Parties for a long period of about one year, no evidence was adduced. It is important to note here that the witnesses produced from the side of the claimant, have been cross-examined by the Department, but no evidence was adduced inspite of sufficient opportunities afforded to it. In this situation of the case it cannot be said that no opportunity was afforded to the Department. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the injured/claimant was working as a casual labour in the Door Sanchar Department and got injured during the course of his employment. 11- So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is concerned, the 5 wages was taken as Rs. 50/- per day on the basis of the un-controverted statement of the claimant and the prevailing rate at the relevant time, therefore the same cannot be said to be excessive. The learned commissioner has adopted the formula in calculating the amount of compensation as has been prescribed under Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The claimant has suffered disability upto the extent of 52% and the learned Commissioner has rightly awarded 50% of the compensation amount. I do not find any mistake in the method of calculating the quantum of compensation. 12- In view of above discussion, the appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The claimant/injured is entitled to get the amount of compensation of Rs.79,421.25, from O.P. No.2, Zila Prabandhak Door Sanchar, Almora, along with interest as has been indicated in the impugned judgment and award. 13- Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 26.8.3002 is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 6