FAO No.569 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.569 of 1990 Decided on 9.12.2010. Umrao Singh ...Appellant Versus Haryana State Electricity Board,Chandigarh, through its Chairman and others Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Ajay Jain,Advocate,for the appellant. None for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral) The appellant is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923 (for short,'the Act'), dated 28.3.1990, by which he has been awarded a total amount of Rs.86,260/-, out of which since some amount was already paid, therefore, on the remaining amount of Rs. 52,372/, ordered simple interest @ 6% per annum to be paid from 7.12.1989 till its realisation. Admittedly, the appellant had suffered injury during the course of his employment which caused 100% disablement as his both hands were amputated. He was then 44 years of age and earning Rs.1450/- per month. Learned Commissioner assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 86,260/- without referring to the provisions of Section 4 (b) read with second schedule of the Act. He submits that Section 4 (b) of the Act provides for the assessment of compensation in a case where the workman has suffered permanent disablement from the injury. He submits that the workman shall be paid an amount equal to sixty percent of the monthly wages multiplied by the relevant factor. It is also alleged that monthly wages was admittedly Rs.1450/-when the appellant had suffered the injury. FAO No.569 of 1990 2 He was 44 years of age and as per Section 4 of the Act, the relevant factor should have been Rs.172.52. He submits that 60% of the salary out Rs.1450/- shall be Rs.870/-which on multiplication with the relevant factors comes to.1,50,092,40 paise. It is further argued that calculations made by the Commissioner is patently erroneous as it runs contrary to the provisions of Section 4 (b) read with second schedule of the Act. There is no opposition to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant as no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, though this case is shown in the regular list of the board of this Court. In any case, I have considered the provisions of Section 4 (b) and also the relevant factor in second schedule of the Act according to which the appellant is entitled to the amount of Rs.1,50,092.40 paise. The upshot of the above discussion results into success of this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is held entitled to difference of Rs.1,50,092.40/- which comes to Rs.63,832.40 paise which shall be paid to him with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation. The respondents are directed to make the payment of this amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Dec 09,2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) rr JUDGE