IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 291 of 1986 Date of Decision : December 05, 2008 The State of Punjab through the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Health and Family Planning Department, Chandigarh and others .....Appellants. Versus Shri Kuldip Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Palvinder Singh, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the respondent. T.P.S. MANN, J. Aggrieved of the judgement dated 9.1.1986 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Hoshiarpur granting an amount of Rs. 33,600/- to the respondent as compensation on account of injuries received by him in an accident, the appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’). In his application filed under Section 22 of the Act, the respondent had averred that he was working as a driver in the Primary F.A.O. No. 291 of 1986 -2- Health Centre at Possi, District Hoshiarpur. On 9.5.1983, while he was driving jeep bearing registration No. PUH-5487 belonging to the Health Centre and was on a return journey from village Kokowal Majari, where Dr. Ram Lal, Senior Medical Officer had gone on tour, the jeep met with an accident near village Daliwal on account of mechanical fault. It overturned and fell into the ditch as a result of which he received multiple injuries. Initially, he was taken to Civil Hospital, Garhshankar but thereafter referred to PGI, Chandigarh where he received treatment for about six months. He had received injuries over both of his nostrils extending to the left side upto the left lower eye-lid, resulting in a fracture, a penetrating injury over the left side of the lower eye-lid and an abrasion over the right lower chest leading to multiple rib fractures. He had to undergo plastic surgery on his face. His left eye-ball had to be removed by the doctors and he had got cosmetic shell (artificial eye-ball) inserted in the left eye socket for which he spent an amount of Rs. 3,000/-. He had also spent Rs. 1,000/- on his treatment and other related expenses. At the time of the accident, he was drawing Rs. 760/- per month as wages and was of the age of 35 years. He, accordingly, prayed for the grant of a sum of Rs. 33,600/- as compensation from the appellants. The claim petition was opposed by the appellants by taking preliminary objections regarding the validity of the notice served upon them and the maintainability of the claim petition, being time barred. The factum of the accident was admitted and so also about the injuries received by the respondent. F.A.O. No. 291 of 1986 -3- In support of his case, the respondent examined himself as AW2, besides examining Kanwar Mohan AW1 while the appellants examined RW1 Harbhajan Lal, Accountant and RW2 Kewal Chand. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused their pleadings and the evidence examined by them. The appellants have already admitted the accident in which the respondent received injuries. The accident had taken place during the course of and in connection with his employment. However, it was denied by the appellants that an artificial eye-ball was inserted in the left eye socket of the respondent. Whatever was spent by the respondent, especially in respect of the medicines, which might not be available in the hospital, he would get reimbursement. The respondent had already submitted bills to the Department to the tune of Rs. 452.01p., besides claiming T.A and DA. which would be reimbursed/paid to him in due course. As per the testimony of PW1, Kanwar Mohan, who was posted as a Registrar in the Eye Department, PGI, Chandigarh, the respondent remained admitted in his department from 13.10.1983 to 18.10.1983 but he continued receiving the treatment from 10.5.1983 to 5.1.1984. He stated about the various injuries which were found on the respondent. As a result thereof, the respondent had lost light from his left eye. His original eye-ball shrank and an artificial eye covering was put. In no case, the eye-sight from the left eye of the respondent could be restored. He proved the record of the F.A.O. No. 291 of 1986 -4- Eye Department as he had been working in the said department at the relevant time and had treated the respondent. Once it stands established that the respondent had lost eye-sight from one of his eyes, he had become permanently disabled from the said eye. In such a situation, he was entitled to the grant of compensation. It is the case of the respondent that he was earning Rs. 760/- per month at the time of the accident. As per Schedule IV to the Act, the respondent was entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 33,600/- as compensation for permanent/total disablement. Under these circumstances, learned Commissioner was justified in granting such an amount to the respondent as compensation. There is no merit in the appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 05, 2008 JUDGE satish