IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 102 of 2005 Chet Ram S/o Tula Ram Aged about 43 years R/o Vilge Gang Naula P.O. Bhumlai Tehsil & District Champawat …..Appellant Vs Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Construction Division) Lohaghat, District Champawat … Respondent Sri M.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant Sri P.C. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 22.10.2001 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner in W.C.C. No. 24 of 1999 whereby the learned Commissioner awarded a sum of RS. 34,684/- as compensation in favour of the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant – Sri Chet Ram was working as a daily wage labourer since 15.12.1993 under the supervision of Executive Engineer, Public Works Department. On 15.12.1995, when the appellant was working as a daily wager, at the time of removing the shuttering of the roof, he fell down from the roof and sustained injuries. He did not receive any compensation for this accident. At the time of the accident, he was aged about 40 years and used to earn Rs. 50/- per day or Rs. 1,300/- per month as a daily wager, therefore, he filed application for awarding compensation before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner / Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani. 3. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner / Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, awarded a sum or Rs. 34,684/- as compensation in favour of the complainant / appellant vide order dated 22.10.2001. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner / Deputy Labour Commissioner, Haldwani, the appellant filed this appeal before this Court for enhancement of the said award. 5. Heard Sri M.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P.C. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State/ respondent and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the court below while deciding the claim petition, did not consider the provision of Section 11 of Workmen Compensation Act which provides that the employer was bound to get the appellant/claimant examined by the qualified medical practitioner or direct the employer to do the same; only then disability could have been ascertained. 7. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the provision of Section 11 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. It is clear from the perusal from the record that the appellant was examined by the doctor during his treatment. Record further reveals that the claimant/appellant himself moved an application for getting himself examined before the Chief Medical Officer in order to ascertain his disability and the Workmen Compensation Commissioner passed an order on an application and directed the Chief Medical Officer to examine the workman and issue the disability certificate, but it appears that the workman could not produce any document issued by Chief Medical Officer showing his disability. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner in view of the provision of the Workmen Compensation Act, himself perused the injuries of the workman and came to the conclusion that the nature of the injuries caused to the workman are temporary. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner keeping in view the nature of the injuries caused to the workman considered the disability upto an extent of 15% in the absence of any certificate issued by the competent authority. Therefore, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any force. 8. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the disability of the workman has been wrongly assessed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner as 15% while as per the averments made by the workman in the claim petition itself, it appears that the injuries caused to the appellant might have made him 50% disabled. I again do not find any force in this argument. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued on the point of the appellant’s disability. He has submitted that the appellant is 50% disabled person as on date. I again do not find any force in this argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as the doctor who has examined the appellant has clearly stated that the appellant may be unable to do his work for some time as his injuries are temporary in nature and the same may be recovered after treatment. 10. I have also considered this aspect that in the absence of any disability certificate to be filed by the workman, the Compensation Commissioner himself examined and perused the injuries and thereafter come to the conclusion that the workman has suffered 15% disability and this observation made by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner cannot be said to be illegal or against the provision of law in any manner. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has committed error while considering the monthly income of the claimant/appellant. The learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner has assessed the monthly income of the injured as Rs 1,300/- instead of Rs. 1,500/-. 12. Sri P.C. Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent has made the rival contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant himself admitted this fact that he was earning Rs. 1,300/- per month as a daily wagers. 13. It reveals from the perusal of the petition that the workman himself indicated his earning as Rs. 1,300/- per month. The relevant paragraph of the claim petition filed by the workman before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner reads us under:- ^^;g fd ?kk;y dh mez nq?kZVuk ds oDr 40 o"kZ dh Fkh og foHkkx ls izfrfnu :0 50&00 vFkkZr~ 1300&00 : ekfld vftZr djrk FkkA^^ Therefore, the submission raised by learned counsel for the appellant on this count is also devoid of any force. 15. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the entire material available on record, I do not find any force in this appeal. So far as the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner is concerned, I do not find any force, which may suggest to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The amount of compensation awarded by the court below is perfectly justified, which cannot be interfered with at this stage. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 24.03.2008 ASWAL