The consequence of the injury and the earning capacity of the workman are crucial in determining partial or total disablement under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

SOMNATH AYYAR, J.

( 1 ) ON 7 March, 1961 Usman Khan who is the respondent before us sustained injuries when he was driving a truck belonging to the Canara Public Conveyance Company, Ltd. , which had employed him. It is undisputed that on account of a mechanical defect in the truck, one of its springs broke and caused the accident in which Usman Khan was involved. He was treated for his injuries in the Government Hospital at Chickmagalur between 7 and 11 March, 1961 when he was discharged. Thereafter he went to a medical practitioner in Puttur in the district of South kanara and was under his treatment until 11 May, 1961. But eventually, notwithstanding all this treatment to which he was subjected, he lost completely the use of his right hand. It is in evidence that in consequence of the accident the third rib and the collar-bone were both fractured and that the bones which so broke never united.

( 2 ) AS required by S. 10 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Usman Khan gave notice of the accident to his employer in which there was also a demand for the payment of compensation. This was followed up by the issue of a demand made through a lawyer's notice issued on 3 June, 1961. But to that notice a reply was sent by the employer on 14 June, 1961 repudiating the claim to compensation. Eventually Usman Khan made a claim before the concerned Commissioner for workmen's Compensation.

( 3 ) THE Commissioner directed the payment of a sum of Rs. 3,360 as compensation on the ground that Usman Khan had suffered permanent total disablement and therefore became entitled to the sum of Rs. 3,360 specified in Col. (3) of Sch. IV to the Workmen's Compensation Act which will be referred to as the Act. The employer appeals.

( 4 ) IT is no longer disputed before us that Usman Khan met with an accident and lost the complete use of his right arm during the course of his employment under the employer. That is what Sri puttaswami submitted to us on behalf of the employer, although in the reply which was sent to the lawyer's letter the employer denied that Usman Khan had suffered any injury in the course of his employment. But the argument presented before us was that the Commissioner was wrong in finding that there was permanent total disablement and that the proper finding which the commissioner should have recorded was that there was only partial disablement entitling Usman khan to a sum of not more than Rs. 2,016, which is 60 per cent of the amount claimable by him of really there had been permanent total disablement.

( 5 ) NOW, if the Commissioner's finding that there was permanent total disablement is correct, it is not disputed that the compensation awarded by him was properly determined. Section 4 of the act directs that where there is permanent total disablement resulting from an injury and the injured workmen has been in receipt of monthly wages falling within limits shown in Col. (1) of sch. IV, the compensation payable to him is the amount shown against such limits in Col. (3)thereof. Since there was no controversy between the employer and the employee that the monthly wages which Usman Khan was receiving was Rs. 80 a month, it should follow that the sum of Rs. 3,360 would be the compensation payable to him if there was permanent total disablement, as found by the Commissioner.

( 6 ) IT is similarly indisputable that, if the disablement was not permanent total disablement, but was only permanent partial disablement as contended for the employer, Usman Khan would have been entitled under the provisions of S. 4 (1) (c) (i) to a sum equivalent to 60 per cent of Rs. 3,360.

( 7 ) NOW "partial disablement" is defined by S. 2 (1) (g) of the Act whole "total disablement" is explained in the definition contained in Clause (l) of that sub-section. Clause (g) reads :

"'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 enga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document