Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.PARVATHA RAO
Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nirmal - Appellant
Versus
Abdul Sattar - Respondent
Decided On : 12-22-94
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 - SECTION 30 - APPEAL - SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW - INTERPRETATION - FINDINGS OF FACT - PERVERSE FINDINGS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - INJURY DURING EMPLOYMENT - BURDEN OF PROOF - EVIDENCE - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - AMENDMENT OF DATE OF ACCIDENT - WORKMAN'S RIGHT TO COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
The workman, Abdul Sattar, claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, alleging that he suffered an eye injury while working as a mechanic for the appellant, A.P.S.R.T.C. The employer denied the claim, contending that the workman had retired on medical grounds in 1979 and that the alleged accident occurred after his retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation allowed the workman's application and awarded compensation. The employer appealed, arguing that the findings of the Commissioner were not supported by evidence and that there was no substantial question of law involved.
Issues: 1. Whether the findings of the Commissioner were supported by evidence? 2. Whether there was a substantial question of law involved in the appeal? 3. Whether the workman was entitled to compensation under the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the findings of the Commissioner were not supported by evidence. The workman had not provided any details of the alleged accident in his application, and his evidence was inconsistent and lacked any reliable or cogent evidence to establish that he suffered an injury during the course of his employment. 2. The court held that there was a substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The question of whether the workman suffered an injury during the course of his employment was a question of fact, but the Commissioner's findings were so perverse that they gave rise to a question of law. 3. The court held that the workman was not entitled to compensation under the Act. The burden of proof was on the workman to establish that he suffered an injury during the course of his employment, and he failed to discharge this burden.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Commissioner was set aside.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the employer i. e. , the Depot Manager, A. P. S. R. T. C. , Nirmal under Section 30 of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 ( the Act , for short) against the order No. D/2308/86 dated 24-11-1987 of the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Warangal allowing the workman s application for compensation numbered as W. C. Case No. 34 of 86 and awarding a sum of Rs. 30,240. 00 as compensation payable by the employer together with interest at 6% from 3-3-1986.
( 2 ) THE respondent in this appeal is the applicant workman, Abdul Sattar, It is not in dispute that he was employed by the appellant herein in the year 1961 as cleaner and that he was promoted as a mechanic in the year 1972. In this application dated 28-2-1986 for compensation under the Act in Form-F under Rule 20 of the Workmen s Compensation Rules, 1924, he stated that on 1-12-1981 he received personal inure by accident arising out of and in the course his employment. Under "the causes of the injury" in the said application, he merely stated "eyes effected". He also stated that his monthly wages amount to Rs. 500. 00 and that notice of the accident was served on 14th day of February, 1972. He claimed a compensation of Rs. 32,000. 00.
( 3 ) IN the counter dated 17-1-1987 filed by the employer i. e. , the appellant herein, it was stated that the workman was under sick list from 14-2-1978 continuously till he retired on medical grounds, and that he was directed to the Civil Surgeon R. T. C. Hospital at Hyderabad on 2-7-1979 for medical examination and report, and that the Civil Surgeon on 4-7-1979 had sent a certificate that the workman was found unfit for all categories of service, and that he retired since 4-7-1979. It was also stated that the workmen was paid all his due amounts in February, 1980 and that his last drawn monthly wages as on 4-7-1979 was Rs. 449-40 Ps. It was denied that the applicant received any personal injury on 1-12-1981 on account of any accident arising arising out of and in the course of employment as he retiree on 4-7-1979 itself. It was also stated that no accident suffered by the workman was made known to the employer. It was also stated that the workman s monthly wages as on 4-7-1979 was Rs. 449-40 Ps. and that his claim for Rs. 32,000. 00 was without any basis and that there was no liability on the part of the employer to pay any compensation to him under the Act. Notice of accident said to have been served on the employer on 14-2-1972, was also denied. It was also contended that the claim of the workman was barred by limitation.
( 4 ) THE workman examined himself as A. W. 1. He asserted that his last drawn wages was Rs. 510. 00. As regards the accident and the injury allegedly suffered by him, he stated as follows in his deposition :- "on 14-2-1978 I am doing repair work of APZ 6711 in the pit to attend the complaint of Brake roll of the vehicle. I am a mechanic in chart-I I am checking the four wheels of the vehicle and other ancillary repairs work. While attending to my duties on Bosch pump to repair it diesel oil tricked on my both eyes and I tried to do the job while smothering eyes by because of having pain I reported to the mechanical foreman who has end me to the Nirmal Government Hospital for examination. The Doctor has given injection and put eyes drops and has given a report which I Have handed it over to Mechanical Foreman. I directed to R. T. C. Hospital at Musheerabad. After checking for 2 days, by ambulance I sent to Sarojini Devi Hospital for further treatment. I was in the hospital for 3 months. After 3 months I was sent to R. T. C. Hospital at Musheerabad who has sent report to the Depot Manager, Nirmal. I have asked for duty. I told the Depot Manger that I could do light work. When questioned what type of work I can do. No reply is given by him Again I am sent R. T. C. Hospital at a certificate that I am medically unfit and sent it to the Depot Manager, Normal in 1979
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
