IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH === F.A.O. No. 999 of 1987 Date of Decision: Ashok Kumar --- Appellant Versus Rajesh Kumar and another --- Respondent … CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal, at the instance of the workman, has arisen out of the order dated 27.6.1987 passed by the Commissioner, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Hisar Circle, Hisar. The appellant has prayed for enhancement of compensation. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed a petition for seeking compensation alleging that he was employed as a driver with Rajesh Kumar, respondent No.1, to ply a Taxi. On 8.8.1983, the appellant was carrying some passengers in the Taxi-car bearing registration No. HRY-1041 and when they reached near Sapra Hospital, Hisar, some persons fired at the passengers. The appellant was seriously injured by the bullets which hit him after piercing through the window- pane. A surgery had to be conducted on the hand of the appellant and four fingers of his right hand had to be amputated. The appellant, thus, F.A.O. No. 999 of 1987 suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50%. At the time of the accident, the appellant was 24 years old and had been drawing a salary of Rs. 600/- per month from the employment as Taxi driver. It was further alleged that besides the above salary, he was also getting a sum of Rs. 200/- on account of privilege benefits like uniform etc. and Rs. 50/- per month on account of medical facilities. It was further alleged that the Taxi being plied by the appellant was duly insured with the respondent- Insurance Company, but no compensation was given by the Insurance Company in spite of demand by the appellant. The petition was contested by the respondents. The extent of disability and the wages being drawn by the appellant were the primary factors that were disputed on behalf of respondent No.1. The factum of the accident as well as the employment of the claimant were also denied. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:- 1- Whether the application is not maintainable? 2- Whether the claim application is within time, if so, to what effect? 3- Whether the application is bad for mis-joinder of the parties? 4- Whether the applicant met with an accident arising out of and in the course of employment of respondent No.1. 5- Whether the applicant is entitled for the amount of compensation, if so, to what amount? 6- Relief. All the issues were decided in favour of the appellant. It was held that the application was filed well within the period of limitation and it was maintainable in the present form. The Commissioner held that the present respondents were the only necessary parties who were required to be impleaded and, thus, the application was not bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. As regards issue No. 4, it was held in clear terms Pag F.A.O. No. 999 of 1987 that “it is amply proved by evidence on record, especially the eye witnesses that the accident of the applicant arose out of and during the course of his employment with respondent No.1.” On the question of compensation, it was held that the appellant was entitled to a compensation of Rs. 12096/-; and since the appellant was denied the compensation for a long period and also for no reason whatsoever, the respondents were further directed to pay 40% of the above amount to the appellant as penalty for delayed payment. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Commissioner is very less. The counsel made reference to Schedules appended to the Act and submitted that the compensation has not been awarded in accordance with the provisions made therein. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel and find merit therein. The matter of grant of compensation in the cases of the alike nature is governed by the provisions of Sections 4 and 4-A and the Schedules appended to the Act. Undisputedly, the appellant had to be deprived of four fingers of his right hand in the surgery that he had to undergo owing to injuries sustained due to hitting of the bullets. He was rendered handicapped and as per opinion of the Doctor, the disability suffered by the appellant was estimated at 50%, though in the disability certificate (Mark-A) produced by him before the Commissioner, the disability was in fact mentioned as 40%. Doctor Soni, who appeared as AW-3 before the Commissioner deposed in clear terms that he gave the treatment to the appellant and the appellant had been disabled by about 40% to 45%. As per the provisions enshrined in Part-II of Schedule-I under the title “LIST OF INJURIES DEEMED TO RESULT IN PERMANENT Pag F.A.O. No. 999 of 1987 PARTIAL DISABLEMENT” and heading [Amputation cases-Upper limbs (either arm)], the percentage of loss of earning capacity has been defined as 50%. The factor for working out lump sum equivalent of compensation amount in case of permanent disablement and death as defined in Schedule IV, is 218.47 against the age of 24 years of the appellant-workman. As noticed above, the appellant was a youth of just 24 years at the time of the accident and a long period of active life was ahead of him to live, but because of the accident in question, he had to suffer amputation of four fingers of his right hand with which, almost all human beings, in the normal course of the nature, perform their all functions. After sustaining injuries and the resultant amputation of fingers, the appellant was incapacitated to perform various functions including those necessary for his survival. There is no dispute between the parties that the appellant sustained injuries during the course of his employment as driver on the Taxi owned by respondent No.1. The sole question in this appeal is of just and fair amount of compensation payable to the appellant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation payable calculated after applying the above para meters, would come to Rs. 87,388/- (i.e. 800x218.47x50/100). Since the appellant was denied his due for a long time, the employer – respondent No.1 is held liable to pay penalty to the extent of 50% of the awarded amount, i.e. Rs. 43,694. The total amount payable comes to Rs. 1,31,082/-( Rs. 87,388 + 43,694). The Commissioner has not awarded any interest. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is also held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the total amount of compensation, which shall be payable from the date of the order, i.e. 27.6.1987 till the date of realization of the entire amount. The Pag F.A.O. No. 999 of 1987 respondents shall deposit the amount of compensation and interest forthwith, with the Commissioner, which shall be paid to the appellant- workman, in accordance with law. In view of the above, the appeal is partly accepted in the manner indicated above. No costs. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) May , 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* Pag