FAO No.1179 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1179 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.7.2010 State of Haryana and others ..Appellants. Vs. Kawar Singh ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Anjum Ahmed, Addl.AG Haryana for the appellants. Mr.Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This appeal is preferred against the order of Commissioner dated 23.5.2008 passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 awarding compensation of Rs.1,34,475/- to the respondent, who had suffered injury during the course of his employment. Briefly put, the respondent filed a claim petition before the Commissioner alleging that he was appointed as a Blacksmith on a monthly salary of Rs.6500/-. He was posted at Haryana Roadways Sub Depot, Bahadurgarh (respondent No.3). On 28.6.2006, he was on duty from 8.30 am to 5 p.m. and when he was about to leave the depot, he was asked for duty in another shift. On 29.6.2006 at 11.30, when he was preparing a tin shed for the generator, as per the direction given by the foreman, he fell down from the height of about 20 feet and received injuries in his back-bone FAO No.1179 of 2009 (O&M) -2- and also got fractured in his left leg. He was admitted in PGI Rohtak where he remained as an indoor patient from 29.6.2006 to 18.7.2006. Thereafter, he took treatment from different hospitals but could not be completely cured. Since he became disabled due to the injuries received during the course of his employment, he filed a claim petition for a sum of Rs.5 lacs. In reply, the respondent-appellant admitted that the claimant was working as a blacksmith. It was also alleged that on 29.6.2006, he was on duty while he was working on a stand of 5 feet height, he fell down due to his own negligence. It was also alleged that foreman had never asked the claimant to work on the generator tin shed. As a matter of fact, the respondents- appellants had tried to shift the negligence on the part of the claimant in order to deny the compensation. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (i)Whether the claim application is maintainable? (ii)Whether there is relationship of employer and employee between the parties? (iii)Whether the accident occurred during the course of employment? (iv)Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation, as claimed? If so, to what amount? In order to prove his case, the claimant examined Dr.Saranjeet Singh Chauhan as PW1 and himself as PW2 whereas the respondents/appellants examined Parbhu Singh, Foreman as RW1, Surender Kumar, Assistant Carpenter as RW2, Kanwal Singh Welder as RW3 and Shamsher Singh, Welder as RW4. PW1 Dr.Saranjeet Singh Chauhan along with other members of Medical Board examined the claimant and issued certificate Ex.P1 assessing FAO No.1179 of 2009 (O&M) -3- his disability as 30%. The learned Commissioner after appreciating the evidence had found that there is no dispute that the claimant was in the employment of the respondents/appellants and had suffered injuries during the course of his employment. He has become permanently disabled to the extent of 30%. It was also held that the respondents-appellants cannot plead negligence on the part of the claimant to deny compensation observing that men, who are employed to work in factories & elsewhere are human beings and not machines. They are subject to human imperfections, therefore, negligence which is tried to be attributed to the claimant, is found to be irrelevant for the purpose of determining the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants has also argued on the same lines alleging negligence on the part of the claimant but I am not convinced at all with the arguments raised because admittedly the claimant is the employee of the appellants. He has suffered the injuries while working in the premises of the appellants. He has been declared permanently disabled to the extent of 30%. Therefore, in my view, the learned Commissioner has rightly held the claimant to be entitled to the amount of compensation as assessed. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 1.7.2010 JUDGE Meenu