D. P. HIREMATH, J.

( 1 ) HEARD. The award of the Commissioner is challenged by the appellant-K. S. R. T. C. contending that the Commissioner has committed an error in awarding the compensation that he has awarded ignoring the fact that the respondent-workman did accept Rs. 6,635/- offered by the appellant and at any rate, the commissioner ought to have considered the fact that the workman still continues in service and has not suffered any loss in income or loss of service.

( 2 ) THE workman has filed cross-objections contending that the award made by the Commissioner is not adequate and that he is entitled to compensation treating the injuries suffered by him as a total disability. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, that the workman-respondent, a driver under the appellant-KS. R. T. C. was driving the vehicle on 26-12-91 from tiptur to Bullegatta and at about 6. 00 p. m. when the driver sighted another vehicle coming opposite to him, he had to swerve it to the left side and at that time, the door near the driver's seat got itself opened and while closing it by stretching his hand, he got his thumb cut-off by one inch. The cut portion was not traced. The learned Commissioner found that the injury fell under Schedule II, Part II of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 18, 690/- applying the relevant table in calculating the amount of compensation.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the appellant, it is urged that the learned Commissioner ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the workman is still in service and has not suffered any loss of service or emoluments. She invited our attention to a decision of this court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v R. Vishnu, in which this court observed that the question as to whether a particular claimant has suffered partial disablement or total disablement should depend upon the nature of employment and further if in a given case an alternative employment is given by the same employer, that factor can be taken into account. In that case, before the court, it was not the case of the appellant that he had given any alternative employment to the respondent as he was a driver and there was amputation of his left leg. This court found that the commissioner was right in treating it as a total disablement and awarding compensation accordingly. This court also made it clear that the Commissioner has power to award compensation more than what is claimed by the workman if the facts do warrant such an award. In our view, the facts of the case referred to above are not attracted in the instant case in as much as the injury now suffered by the workman is a schedule injury falling under Schedule I of Part II of the Act. At item 10, the injury stated is "loss of terminal phalanx of thumb" and the schedule says that it causes 20% loss of earning capacity. If this schedule is considered in the light of the factors to be applied for determination of compensation under Section 4 of the Act, what the learned Commissioner has now awarded becomes the one awardable under the statute. There is absolutely no dispute over this fact. So far as the criterian laid down by this court regarding consideration of causing of permanent disability or otherwise, the same is not attracted in the instant case, though according to the respondent he continues to work as a driver.

( 4 ) SECTION 2 (g) of the Act defines what is "partial disablement" and further adds a deeming provision by stating that every injury specified in Part-II, Schedule-I shall be deemed to result in permanent partial disablement. Hence, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to award less than what is prescribed by the statute treating a particular injury other than an injury causing permanent partial disablement. Further, as rightly urged on behalf of the respondent, in considering whether a disability is partial or total the other factors may be considered to award a higher com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document