32 1 IJ e FeAeOeNoa334 of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F A No 334 of 1997 Date of Decision2 April 6 2011 1 1 0 0 0 Dharam Paul lppellant I C5 Versus I Jai Dev alias Jade Ram csince deceasedl through his LeRs iee Z respondents Nos l to 6 Respondents C4 I CORAM HONBLE MR1USTICE MOHINDER PAL Z le Whether Reportersof Iocal papers may be allowed to see the judgment7 C0 2 To be referred to the Reportersor not 3e Whether the judgmentshould be reportedirl the Digest7 aw Z Presentl MrPeSChauhanAdvocate for the appellant 0m None for the respondents MOHINDER PAL 3 AppeilantDharam Paul has filed this appeal challengingthe orderl award dated 17101996 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmens CompensationAct 1923 Rohtak hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner whereby appIicationof the appellant for grant Pe Rani Anita 2012.09.03 13: 28 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 33 2 FeAeOeNOe334 of 1997e of compensation to the tune of Rs 1500001 against Jai Dev alias Jade Ram of the respondentsl on account of amputation of appellant Ieft arm above elbow while In the employmentof Jai Dev was dismissed At the outset it may be mentioned here that before filing the instant claim applicationunder the Workmens CompensationAct 1923 lereinafter referred to as the ActI the appellant had tlled an 1 applicationbefore the Commissioner under the DangerousMachines RegulationoAct 1983 on account of amputationof his Ieft arm C above elbow which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order I C5 dated 30901994 with Iiberty to the appellantto take recourse to the I alternative remedy It was thereafter that the instant Z applicationlpetition was filed by the appellant claiming 2 from Jai Dev In the application filed by the r appellant before the Commissioner under the DangerousMachines I RegulationlAct 1983 the appellanthad himself appeared in the Z witness box besides examiningfour more witnesses However in the oo instant applicationunder the Act the appellantonly himseif appeared in the witness box Z In supportofhis case and could not examine anyother witness Shorn off all unnecessary details the appellant had taken an advance of Rs80001 from Jai Dev about five years prior to the accident which took place at 6 PM on 2431992 and thereafter Jai Dev had taken the appellant in his employmentas a Iabourer On 243 1992 the appellantwas working on the thrasher of Jai Dev during the harvesting of wheat crop when the accident occurred ieading to the amputation of the Ieft arm of the appellant above the elbow 1 Rani Anita 2012.09.03 13: 28 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 34 3 FeAeOe NOe334 of 1997e 1 The appellant immediately after the accident had been taken to Medical College and Hospital Rohtak The appellanthad suffered 80 per cent disability A perusal of the record shows that DrK Moda Assistant Professor Medical College and Hospital Rohtak who had treated the appellant had been summoned by the appellant through the Commissioner with the relevant record of CR No761310 dated j 2431992in respectof the appellantseveral times but the said Doctor 0 did not appear The Commissioner did not take effective steps to 0 secure the Presence of DrSK Moda However on record there is I C5 Certificate issued by Dr A Sharma M S Ortho OrthopaedicSurgeon I Civil Hospital Rohtak counter signed by DrD K Sharma District Medical Z Oftlcer Rohtak depicting that the appellanthad suffered 80 per cent r disability There IS also on record Out Patient Card bearing NoA836 dated 2431992 of the Medical College and Hospital Rohtak I in respect of the appellant wherein it was diagnosed to amputateIeft Z armll The appellant also produced on record his photographshowing r that his Ieft hand had been cut above the elbow Z Jai Dev denied that the appellantwas working as a 0n Iabourer with him However it is the assertion of Jai Dev on record that when he demanded back the Ioan amount of Rs80001 which 1 he had given to the appellant he appellant falsely filed the claim case against him Surprisingly the Commissioner instead of taking this admission of Jai Dev in favour of the appellant who had suffered in the employmentof Jai Dev the Commissioner formed the view that there was weight Ill the contention of Jai Dev as there was nothing on record that the Ioan amount had been returned by the appellantto Jai Dev As noticed above it is the case of the appellant himself that he Rani Anita 2012.09.03 13: 28 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 35 4 FeAeOeNO 334 of 1997e had taken an advance of Rs8ooole from Jai Dev about five years pnor to the accident and it was thereafter that JaiDev had taken the appellant irl his employmentas a Iabourer The appellant in his depositionIll Court stated that Jai Dev had taken him in his employmentas a IabOurer on a monthly salaryof Rs1ooo but he 1 used to be paid only Rs3001 per month There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the appellant after he had suffered a Iot j on account of physical as well as mental and financial agony on 0 account of the amputationof his Ieft arm above the elbow resulting in 0 80 per cent disability I t5 The evidence on record proves Itl certain terms that there I was relationship of master and servant between the appellant and Jai Z Dev and that on 243 1992 when the appellantwas working on the thrasher of Jai Dev during the harvestingof wheat crop the Ct accident occurred which Ied to the amputationof the Ieft arm of the I c appellant above the elbow The Commissioner was not justified lll Z dismissing the claim petitionof the appellant QO For the aforesaid reasons this appealssucceeds The same 7 Is accordingly allowed and the Z impugned award given by the Commissioner is set aside The disabilityof the appellant being 80 per cent and he having suffered a Iot financially mentally and physicallyon account of the amputationof his Ieft arm above the elbow I am of the considered Vlew that compensation to the tune of Rs 500001 along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of accident ie 243 1992 till the realization of the said amount of Rs500001e deserves to be awarded to the appellant Ordered accordingly This amount shall be recoverable from the respondents The respondents are directed to deposit this amount Rani Anita 2012.09.03 13: 28 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 36 5 r FAeOe No34 of 1997 1 before the Commissioner within a periodof one and a half months from today The RegistryIS directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Commissioner forthwith who will take steps to recover the amount of compensation from the respondents and to disburse the same to the appellant at the earliest Datedl April 0210 2011 MOHINDER PAL r 1 JUDGE 0 U I C I Z r I Z m wa Z 2 VS 1 b 1 Rani Anita 2012.09.03 13: 28 True Scanned Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document