IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 92 of 2007 Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital … Appellant Vs Bhuvan Singh Rautela … Respondent Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant Sri B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the respondent Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, 1923 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 09.01.2007 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner / Assistant Labour Commissioner, Kumaon Region, Nainital in W.C.A. No. 23 of 2006, Bhuvan Singh Rautela Vs E.O. Nagar Palika Parishad, Nainital whereby the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 2,30,994/- in favour of the claimant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant/injured was engaged in the year 1973 as a Traffic Jamadar in Nagar Palika, Nainital. He was deputed on his duty at Tallital, Tool Bar, Nagar Palika Check Post along with his other companions. At about 10:30 p.m., a Tata Indica car hit him and he sustained serious injuries on his body. His companion admitted him in the B.D. Pandey Hospital, Nainital from where he was referred to Bareilly Hospital where his one leg was amputated. The report of the accident was lodged by the Prem Singh on the same date at Tallital Police Station. According to the claimant, he was 57 years of age and used to earn Rs. 7,000/- per month as salary. The claimant has submitted the disability certificate, which shows that he sustained 75% disability. Therefore, the claimant/injured filed claim petition 2 for a sum of Rs. 6,73,732.60 under the Workmen Compensation Act before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. 3. Thereafter, notice was issued to the respondent who has filed its written statement before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner admitting the factum of accident. It has further alleged that the claimant/injured was getting Rs. 200/- from the Department as disability allowance and the claimant/injured is getting his full salary as has been getting earlier. It has further pleaded that the department has given entire amount, which the claimant/injured spent on his medical treatment, therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 4. Thereafter both the parties led evidence in support of their case before the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 2,30,994/- as compensation against the appellant/respondent vide judgment and order dated 09.01.2007. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the sole ground. He has submitted that the 3 claimant/injured is getting his full salary along with the disability allowance and other allowances as applicable earlier. He has further submitted that the department has paid the entire amount claimed by the claimant/respondent for his treatment and the claimant has not suffered any financial loss. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award against the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has made the rival contention and has submitted that the claimant is unable to do his work properly. In order to support his submission, he has invited my attention towards disability certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Nainital, which shows that the claimant sustained 75% disability by this accident. He has further submitted that the department is paying Rs. 200/- per month as disability allowance as per rules of the Government, therefore, it cannot be considered as compensation. He has further submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner does not require any interference. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, I am of the view that the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has rightly awarded the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant/injured. From the perusal of the record it is clear that the claimant/injured sustained 75% disability, he was 57 years of age and used to get Rs. 8,388/- per month as salary. It is also not disputed that the claimant/injured is getting Rs. 200/- per month as disability allowance as applicable under the rule, therefore, the learned Commissioner has not taken this amount as compensation. The learned 4 Workmen Compensation Commissioner on the basis of the material available on record rightly taken into account the monthly wages of Rs. 4,000/- as per schedule indicated in the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner calculated the amount of compensation considering the factor given in schedule 4 appended with Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and also considering the disability of 75% of the claimant/injured awarded Rs. 2,30,994/- as per provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I also do not find any calculation error in the impugned judgment and award. The amount awarded by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner is just and proper. 10. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the appellant. 11. I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner in this regard. I do not find any force in the present appeal. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 26.11.2008 ASWAL