// :^^ \t ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (Q No. 245 of2006 APPELLANT Bhuwal Bind Versus RESPONDENTs Tata Project Ltd. and others. AWARD For consideration ^ 3 -9-20 11 Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Hon'ble Shri Justice Ra.ieev Gupta ^^^Y^^-^ ' ^r-r—"—— Sd/- Chief Justice Post for pronouncement of Award: ^1. -9-2011 Sd/- Judge 23 -9-2011 ^'-^ yl:i. -": •T.'.',i-e ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) No. 245 of 2006 APPELLANT Bhuwal Bind, S/o Ramjatan Bind, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Naigura Tej Singh, Post Jigna R.S. Naroja Bazar, Mirjapur, Dist. Mirjapur (U.P.) RESPONDENTS Versus 1. Tata Project Ltd., Through Site Incharge, Sipat Super Thermal Power Project (NTPC), Village Nawadih, Sipat, Distt. Bilaspur. 2. Sipat Super Thermal Power Ltd. Through General Manager, NTPC, Post Sipat, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. 3. Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Manager, Ahura Center, Fourth Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East)- Mumbai-400093 4. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur, Green Park Colony, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT 1923 Corani: Hon. Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon. Shri N.K.. Agarwal, J PRESENT:- Shri Ravish Verma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri G.S. Patel, counsel for respondent No.3. . ^''•S-SS»-. :" \ ff if ':i> "::"^.. a 'v&^"^ s 't TIJ'J ''^..^y -'SiaBasO' AWARD (Passed ons^ -9-2011) Per N.K^ Agarwal, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur (for short the Commissioner') vide award dated 31.05.2006 in Case No.206/WCA/05(NF), the instant appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant i-uider Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (henceforth the Act'). 2. The appellant/claimant preferred an application under Section 10 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,40,316/- for injuries sustained by him in the accident dated 19.01.2005 arising out of and in the course of eum.ploym.ent. 3. The Conimissioner, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held: the appellant, at the time of accident, was working under respondents No. 1 & 2 as their employee; met with an accident on 19.01.2005 which arose out of and during the course of employment; sustained serious injuries in ,his right eye resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 40%; appellant was getting monthly salary of Rs.2820/- at the time of accident; respondent No.S/the Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited issued policy of insurance covering the risk of the appellant and is responsible for :K~;'^- 'St ^"•.^ ^•^'•... il; ^'.;"^:':::'.' '& ^ •'t-,-^./' {•f ...ff" payment of compensation to the appellant; and awarded Rs.1,37,966/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident i.e. 19.01.2005 till its payment penalty of Rs.20,000/-. 4 . Shri Ravish Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: the Commissioner was not justiSed in taking into consideration the loss of earning capacity of the appellant as 40% and in awarding Rs.20,000/- only towards penalty under Section 4-A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. On fhe other hand, Shri Vinod Deshmukh and Shri Abhishek Sinha with Shri G.S.Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 respectively supported the award and submitted: the Commissioner, on proper appreciation of the evidence recorded in the case, has rightly assessed the loss of earning capacity of the appellant to the extent of 40% and rightly awarded penalty of Rs.20,000/- and award of the Commissioner does not call for any interference. 6. We have heard leamed counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the Tribunal including the award impugned. ^,9 7. As per paragraph 8 of the claim petition, the appellant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 40% on account of loss of one eye and was aged about 32 years at the time of accident. 8. The Commissioner, considering the admission of the appellant in his cross-examination paragraph 23 and Ex.D-1, assessed wages of the appellant as Rs.94/- per day i.e. Rs.2820/- per month. 9. Indisputably, perm.anent disability suffered by the appellant was 40% and the injury was scheduled injury. As per Section 4 (l)(c)(i) of the Act, in case of injury specified in Part-II of Schedule - I, the percentage of loss of earning capacity would be same as percentage of permanent disability. Therefore, the Coinmissioner has not committed any mistake in assessing loss of earning capacity as 40%. Further, the Commissioner has also assessed wages and age of the appellant on proper appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case. 10. The Commissioner, in his discretion, also awarded Rs.20,000/- as penalty and interest@ 12% per annum. 11. Shri Ravish Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, could not point out any legal infirmity in the above approach ll0 <i- < of the Commissioner in calculation of compensation. We also do not find any legal infirmity in the award made by the Commissioner. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agrawai Judge