GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 6. 12. 91 in W. C. Case No. 56 of 1990 of the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, warangal, aggrieved by the award of compensation at Rs. 2,924.

( 2 ) THE appellant No. 1 is the workman under the services of the respondent company. He died on 11. 6. 1996 and his legal representatives are brought on record vide order of this court dated 27. 11. 1998 in c. M. P. No. 23242 of 1998 as appellant nos. 2 to 4.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case as narrated in claim petition are that the deceased appellant No. 1, who was employed in singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. as trammer met with an accident on 26. 7. 1987 at about 6 a. m. during the course of his employment in Morgan s pit when full tub jumped from rails and hit the right leg resulting in compound fracture of both ankle and hips of right leg. As a result of the accident his leg was shortened by 4" and a plate was inserted into his leg and he became totally disabled thereby resulting in loss of 100 per cent earning capacity. His services were terminated by the respondent company with effect from 31. 1. 1989 as he was medically unfit for underground job. He made an application on 22. 4. 1990 under section 4 of Workmen s Compensation Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,04,101. 20. He was aged 50 years at the time of the accident and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 1,700.

( 4 ) THE respondent company filed a counter-affidavit admitting the injuries sustained by the petitioner to his right leg during the course of employment in the third shift of 25. 7. 1987. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the workman himself was responsible for the accident since he attempted to travel on a running set which was prohibited by Coal Mine Regulations. He was given necessary treatment for which the management spent a sum of Rs. 40,000 and also paid full wages of rs. 28,551. 50 during the period of treatment. It is further stated that the workman s wife was provided employment in the company in view of his disability and medical unfitness to take up the job.

( 5 ) BEFORE the court below the workman examined himself as PW 1 and he deposed in the same manner as stated in the claim petition. None were examined on behalf of the employer but Exh. R-l, the medical report of the injured workman was marked on its behalf. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record, the Commissioner assessed the compensation payable at rs. 2,924. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.

( 6 ) MR. G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the approach of the Commissioner for workmen s Compensation, Warangal, is not in accordance with law and he committed an error in not awarding appropriate compensation. According to him, the assessment made by the Commissioner that the disability is to the extent of 4 per cent without considering the loss of earning capacity is incorrect and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act since it is clear from Exh. R-l, the medical report, wherein the board declared that the workman is unfit to work as trammer in view of the total disability, that the loss of earning capacity is 100 per cent. To substantiate his contention he has drawn my attention to the definitions under section 2 (1) (g) and (1) of the Act, which are as follows:"2 (1) (g): partial disablement means, where the disablement is of a temporary nature, such disablement as reduces the earning capacity of a workman in any employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident resulting in the disablement and, where the disablement is of a permanent nature, such disablement as reduces his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at that time: provided that every injury specified in part II of Schedule I shall be deemed to result in permanent partial disablement. 2 (1) (1): total disablement means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document