The main legal point established is that a workman may be entitled to compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act even if the earning capacity is not affected, and the importance of medical evidence in assessing claims for compensation.

1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the Order dated 12.07.1999, made in W.C.No.163 of 1997, on the file of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Coimbatore, dismissing the claim of Rs.41,984/- made by the appellant/petitioner.

2. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/petitioner has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the Order of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, Coimbatore and to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.41,984/- to the appellant, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of payment.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was employed as Masdoor in the Telecommunications Department, Coimbatore. On 26.07.1995, while the petitioner was engaged in doing his work, in the course of his employment, at the Telephone Board at Murugampalayam, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Sub-divisional Officer, Telecommunication Department (South), Tiruppur, he received electric shock, due to which he was thrown away. In the result, he sustained fracture on his right thigh bone. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 29 years and was getting a monthly income of Rs.1,823/-. The petitioner has stated that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has sustained 40% of the disability, which was certified by a Government Doctor and hence he has claimed a compensation of Rs.41,984/-from the respondent, who is the General Manager, Telecommunication Department, Coimbatore, under Section 10 of the Workmens Compensation Act.

4. The respondent, in his counter, has resisted the claim stating that the age and disability sustained by the petitioner has to be proved through documentary evidence. The respondent has admitted the claim of the petitioner that he had sustained injuries in the accident caused on 26.07.1995, while working under the instructions of his manager. It has been submitted by the respondent that an Engineering Committee was set up and an investigation was carried out by them regarding the cause of the accident and it was found by the committee that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is also to be held equally responsible for the cause of the accident. As such, it has been submitted by the respondent that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. It has also been submitted that the Disability Certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Tiruppur lacked material clarity and as such the respondent had sought a fresh certificate from the hospital authorities through the claimant indicating the exact nature of injuries sustained and the type of disability suffered.

5. The Workmens Compensation Commissioner framed four issues for the consideration namely:

(i) Does the petitioner Arputharaj come under the category of workman under the Workmens Compensation Act?

(ii) Did the accident happen during the course of his employment under the respondent?

(iii) What is the quantum of compensation, which the petitioner is entitled to get?

(iv) Who is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner?

6. The petition in his petition and evidence before the Commissioner had deposed that on 26.07.1995, while he was working at the Telephone Board at Murungampalayam, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Sub-divisional Officer, Telephones (South), he had received electric shock and as a result he had sustained injuries. The respondent, in his counter, has admitted the claim of the petitioner that the accident had occurred during the course of his employment under them. As such, the Commissioner held that the petitioner can be considered to be a workman as per the Workmens Compensation Act and also held that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident during the course of his employment under the respondent.

7. As the respondent had not countered the claim of the petitioner that he was getting a mo