LexPRATAP NARAIN SINGH DEO versus SRINIVAS SABATA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 872 PRATAP NARAIN SINGH DEO v. SRINIVAS SABATA AND ANR. December 4, 1975 [A. N. RAY, CJ., M. H. BEG, R. s. SARKARIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J Workmen's Compensation Act (8 of 1923), ss. 2 (i)(l), 4A and 19 and item 3 of Part ll of Sch. [-Scope of . Under Section 2(i) ( 1} of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 19,23, "total disablement" means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workmen for all work which he was capable of per- forming at the time of the cccident resulting in such disablement. Under s. 4A(3 ), when an employer defaults in pa~ing the compensation within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner may direct payment of penalty and interest if he is of the opinion that there was no justification for the employer's delay. The Commissioner, in the present case, awarded compensation, holding that the respondent was a carpenter by profession, that he suffered an injury by an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the appel- lant, that it resulted in the amputation of his left arm from above the elbow, that in consequence he had become unfit for the work of carpenter as carpen- tery cannot be carried on with one hand only, and that, therefore, the res- pondent had Jost 100% of his earning capacity, that is. that he suffered total disablement. He also ordered the payment of penalty under s. 4A(3) together with interest at 6 per cent per annum. The appellant's writ petition to the High Court challenging the order was dismissed. In appeal to this Court, it was contended, (I). that the amputation was of the nature referred to in item 3 of Part II of Sch. I of the Act and must therefore be deemed to have resulted only in permanent partial disable- ment, and (2) that the Commissioner erred in imposing a penalty, as com- pensation had not fallen due until it was settled by the Commissioner under s. 19. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : ( 1) The finding of the Commissioner that there was total disable- ment was correct. The argument with reference to item 3 of Part II of Sch. I was a )lew case which could not be allowed to be raised by the appeJiant be- cause the facts relied on had not been admitted or established. [874G-H] (2) The Commissioner was fully justified in ordering the payment of penalty and interest. [875AJ (a) Section 3 ( 1) of the Act provides that an employer shall be liable to pa" co111pensc1tion if personal injur_y is caused to a workman by accident arisin·g out of and in the course of his employment. Therefore under s. 4A(l) it was the duty of the appellant to pay the compensation at the rate provided in s. 4, as soon as the personal injury was caused to the respondent. Not only did ihe appellant not do so or even make a provisional payment under s. 4A(2). he took the false pleas that the respondent was a casual contractor and that the accident was caused solely by the respondent's own negligence, and raised fri- volous objections before the Commissioner that he had no jurisdiction. and even prevailed on the respondent to file a memorandum of agreement settling the claim at a grossly inadequate sum. He was therefore liable to pay the penalty and the interest. [875B, E-HJ (b) There is nothing in s. JO-which provides that if any question arises in any proceeding under the Act as to the liability of any person to pay com- pany on or as to the amount or duration of the compensation it shall, in default .. \ 1.,. -, I . ' PRATAP NARAIN v. SRINlVAS (Shinghal, !.) 873 of agreement, be settled by the Olmmissioner-to justify the argument that A appellant's liability to pay compensation was suspended until after the settle- ment under s. 19. [815-CE] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1536 of 1970. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 10th November, 1969 of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack in O.J.Cs. B No. 877 of 1969. Santosh Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL, J. This appeal by special leave is by_ Pratap Nar~in Singh Deo who is the proprietor of two cinema ha~s. m Jcypore, dis- trict Koraput, Orissa. It is not in dispute that Snmvas Sabata, res- pondent No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) . was working as a carpenter for doing some ornamental work in a c111ema hall of the appellant on July 6, 1968, when he fel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.