-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO.1183 OF 1989 1. Tukaram Sakharam Chikane 2. Mangal Plastic Industries Co. Taloja through its owner, Tukaram Sakharam Chikane. : Appellants (Orig.Opponents) V/s. Mahendrakumar Shamlal Pasi : Respondent (Orig.Applicant) ... Mr.Rajesh Patil i/b. Mr.A.K. Abhyankar or the appellants. Mr.Rajiv Patil with Ms Seema Sarnaik for the respondent. ... CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATE : APRIL 15, 2008. ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. The respondent (original applicant) had filed an application for compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the appellants being the employer. The respondent led evidence of four witnesses to support his case. The appellants led evidence of two officers of the company. -: 2 :- 2. After considering the material and evidence led by the parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion by giving finding on each issue that the applicant proved that he was working with the company; that the incident took place during the course of his employment and, therefore, granted the compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 3. After hearing both the parties and considering the material placed on record, I see no reason made out to interfere with the finding so arrived at by the Court below. 4. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the basic requirement is that the applicant-claimant must prove that he was working with the respondent-company at the relevant time as an employee. Having once led the evidence to support the same and as the appellants failed to discharge their burden, there is no reason that in cases where such an employee suffered an accident and that results into injury, his entitlement to claim cannot be overlooked especially when there is ample material on record to justify the injury based upon the medical evidence placed on record. Another facet is whether the accident took place during the course of his employment. The appellants basically disputed the question on the foundation that he was not employed and, secondly, it was not during the -: 3 :- course of his employment. These factual aspects also were considered & negatived by the trial Court and as there is material available to support the same, I see no reason to interfere with the said finding also. 5. Based upon these two facts, now what remains is the compensation and the quantum of the compensation. The finding so arrived at in this regard also cannot be said to be perverse or bad in law. 6. The reasoning is as under:- "The Applicant has stated that for about 3 months he was working in the Opponent company and during that period he was getting monthly salary of Rs.500. He stated that his present age is 22 years. Loss of four fingers of one hand is treated 50% loss of earning capacity. It appears from the record in spite of loss of four fingers the Applicant is able to do some other work. Loss of four fingers of one hand is only 50% loss of earning capacity. Taking into consideration evidence on record, I think it just to award compensation of Rs.40,000 to the Applicant. -: 4 :- Hence, I answer issue No.3 accordingly." 7. Even otherwise, there is no case to interfere with the said quantum of compensation. 8. Taking all these facts into account, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. The interim order as granted on 9.3.2006 also stands vacated. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.