FAO No.285 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.285 of 1987 Date of decision: December 15, 2008 Rattan Singh …..APPELLANT Versus Gurmukh Singh …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Yogesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. T.P.S.MANN, J. Challenge in the appeal is to the order dated 22.1.1987 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Rupnagar in so far as it pertained to the amount of compensation. Vide impugned order, the Commissioner granted a sum of Rs.18,144/- to the appellant as compensation for the injury received by him which led to chopping off his left hand. Holding that the permanent disability was to the extent of 60%, the Commissioner awarded the amount mentioned above, being 60% of the amount of Rs.32,340/-, which an employee earning between Rs.500/-and Rs.600/- would have got in case of permanent disablement. As per the proved facts, the appellant received personal injuries on account of an accident on 21.6.1984 arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent when he was performing FAO No.285 of 1987 -2- his duties on a Saw machine. As a result, his left arm was chopped off from 4” above the wrist. Dr Harmeet Singh AW3 deposed about the injuries of the appellant, which are as under: 1. Crush injury on the left hand. 2. Crush injury on the left lower forearm. According, to certificate Ex. P1 proved by Dr Harmeet Singh AW3, there was 65% permanent physical disability. Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the appellant, who had been working on the Saw, received the injury as a result of which his left hand had to be chopped off. In the absence of one of his hands, he became unfit to work on the Saw, which meant a total disablement in terms of Section 2 (1) (l) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to receive the compensation of Rs.32,340/- as per the Schedule of compensation given under the Act. Reliance has also been placed upon Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs Srinivas Sabata (1976) 1 SCC 289 where a carpenter had suffered an amputation of his left arm from the elbow, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it amounted to a total disablement as he had been disabled from all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. Further, in K.Janardhan vs United India Insurance Company Limited and another (2008) 8 SCC 518, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the tanker driver had suffered a 100% disability and incapacity in earning as his right leg had been amputated from the knee. FAO No.285 of 1987 -3- The expression “total disablement” has been defined in Section 2(I)(l) of the Act as follows: '2.(1)(l) “total disablement” means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement.' A Saw worker uses both his hands to lift heavy logs of wood and place them on the machine for sawing them. In the absence of one of his hands, he would find it difficult to lift even light logs of wood, what to talk of heavy logs, meaning thereby that he has been rendered unfit to work on the Saw. While appearing as AW2, the appellant deposed that on account of chopping off his hand from 4” above the wrist, he could not make use of his left arm. It also became difficult for him in securing labour work for him. Under these circumstances, it is held that the appellant had total disablement of 100% and not just 65% as certified by AW3 Dr Harmeet Singh. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is modified by enhancing the compensation to Rs.32,340/-. Besides, the appellant is also entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs.14,196/- from the date of the impugned order till payment of the enhanced compensation. December 15, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE FAO No.285 of 1987 -4-