MANJULA CHELLUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the aggrieved workman who had filed WCA/cr-6/93-94.

( 2 ) IN brief appellant herein contended before the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Mysore as under: he was a workman in the respondent establishment, which is a manufacturing unit of cream biscuits. As on the relevant date he was 19 years and was getting a salary of Rs. 500 p. m. The machineries of the respondent establishment had become old and in spite of several requests and demands by the workers it did not get them repaired. On 18. 11. 92 when the appellant- applicant was preparing the cream on the concerned machine, his right hand was caught in the machine. As a result the fingers and the wrist portion got crushed in the machine. He was immediately taken to hospital on 18. 11. 1992. He spent lot of money for his treatment in the hospital where he was inpatient for five weeks. On account of the injuries sustained by him he is not in a position to stretch his right hand and, therefore, he cannot work with his right hand. After his discharge his approach for help from the respondent was turned down. With these averments he had sought for lump sum compensation from the respondent employer.

( 3 ) THE respondent entered appearance and filed his objections contending that the applicant was not at all a workman employed in his establishment, much less as assistant in the preparation of cream for the biscuits. He is totally a stranger. As a matter of fact, no accident had taken place on 18. 11. 1992 as alleged by him. Therefore, the question of extending any help did not arise. Further contended that application was filed only in order to make wrongful gain. With these averments the respondent employer had sought for dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the applicant proves that he was a workman in the respondent factory? (2) Whether the applicant proves that he was getting the salary of Rs. 500 per month and that he was aged about 19 years? (3) Whether the applicant proves that the accident has occurred to him arising out of and during the course of his employment under the respondent? (4) To what extent the applicant is entitled to compensation under the Act? (5) To what orders?

( 5 ) AS could be seen from the above records the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation came to conclusion that the applicant-appellant was a workman in the establishment of the respondent employer. He further came to the conclusion that the accident in question did occur out of and during the course of employment. So far as the age and the salary of the workman based on the evidence available, the learned Commissioner came to conclusion that the appellant was 19 years and was getting a salary of Rs. 500 p. m. as on the date of accident.

( 6 ) SO far as quantum of compensation is concerned, apart from the evidence of appellant-applicant, one Dr. L. Yoganara-simhachar, Professor and Head of the Department of Orthopaedics at K. R. Hospital, mysore, was examined as PW 3. Taking into consideration the medical evidence available on record and the personal observation of the appellant-applicant by the commissioner, the Commissioner came to conclusion that the appellant has sustained loss of earning capacity of 40 per cent of a permanent nature. The accident had occurred on 18. 11. 1992, i. e. , subsequent to the Amendment Act of 1984 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The quantum of compensation was awarded at Rs. 24,000 taking the relevant factor as 225. 22 as per section 4 (1) (c) (ii ). Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the learned counsel for the appellant contending that the court below ignored the total disability of the appellant and the assessment of compensation of rs. 24,000 is not proportionate to the actual injuries and the disability suffered by the appellant. It is further contended that the Commis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document