M/S Bansal Enterprises v. Vinod Yadav

1. This first appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant/management under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 impugning the judgment dated 12.9.2012 which has awarded compensation to the workman/respondent.

2. As per the case of the respondent/claimant he was working at a salary of Rs.4,100/- per month with the appellant herein, respondent before the Commissioner. Claimant was 28 years of age when on 7.1.2009 at about

5.30 p.m. while working in the factory a tool key of a machine broke and the same penetrated the right eye of the respondent/applicant whereupon the 2014:DHC:425 claimant injured his right eye and became unconscious. The management got his treatment done. The respondent claimed that the management had assured that they would give complete treatment and salary for the period, but management did not and hence the present compensation claim. It is also then pleaded by the respondent/applicant that he has suffered 80% loss to earning capacity on account of injury to his eye and therefore compensation of Rs.1.[5] lacs be awarded alongwith 12% interest and penalty as provided under Section 4A of the Act. The defence of the appellant/management before the Commissioner was that deceased had suffered injuries not at the factory premises but at his own home on account of falling of a fan in the residence which had resulted in injury to his eye.

3. This issue as to whether the injury was caused to the respondent/workman in the factory establishment of the appellant or at his own home has been dealt with in para 9 of the impugned judgment and by which the Commissioner has held that the case of the Management is not believable as per the evidence on record. Para 9 reads as under:- “9. It has been stated by the application that on 7.1.2009 when he was working on the machine a tool key and it skidded and penetrated the right eye of the applicant and due to that he has diminished his vision and has been assessed by the doctor to the extent of 10%. The respondent stated that he did not sustain injury in the work premises and he has sustained injury while working on his fan at his resident. He worked with them upto 30.6.2009 and on 30.6.2009 he got his full and final and left the job. Had he sustained the injury while working he would definitely had received injury compensation. They have filed a police report whereby they have evidenced that the injury was caused at his residence. They have filed a police report whereby they have evidenced that the injury was caused at his residence. On the contrary the applicant has filed a report of the Labour Inspector who had visited the factory and had taken the statement both of the workman and the respondent. While taking the statement in the factory nothing of that sort came from the respondent that he had sustained injury at his residence. I do not find any logic in the contention of the respondent that the injury had been caused at his residence while working to repair a fan at his residence that too in the month of January. They have not brought any evidence to that effect nor did they disclose any source of information where it has been got from. They have not bring any evidence of any worker in the establishment to substantiate this contention of them. Hence I find that there is employee-employer relationship between applicant and respondent and the injury has been cause while working on the machine and machine particle pierced his eye. Hence my reply to the issues is in favour of the applicant and against the respondent.”

4. I note that the Commissioner has not given the date of the report of the Labour Inspector however this report of the Labour Inspector is dated 12.8.2010 and which is a document filed by the appellant/management itself as Ex.MW1/6.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues before me that the respondent/workman itself had given a statement to the police, Ex.MW1/3 and where the workman/respondent admitted that he got injured at his residence and consequently Commissioner has committed an error in allowing the compensation application.

6. In my opinion, though the conclusion of the Commissioner is correct, the complete reasoning has not been given in para 9 of the impugned judgment. In my opinion, the real reason by which respondent/claimant is entitled to compensation is that out of the two contesting documents being Ex.MW1/3; which is the statement to the police of the workman; and the report of the Labour Inspector dated 12.8.2010, Ex.MW1/6; it is the later document which inspires more credibility and which has to be believed. This is for the reason that the statement of the appellant is immediately given one day after the incident wherein the respondent/workman could have been under an impression that the management would compensate him and he may not have therefore liked to prejudice the management however the assurance which would have been given to the respondent/workman turned out to be false and therefore the compensation claim had to be filed by the respondent. The most important aspect to be noted is that in Labour Inspector’s report Ex.MW1/6 management has itself admitted that it has borne the costs for the entire medical treatment of the workman, and which clearly shows that the workman/respondent would have suffered injury at the factory premises because it is not believable as to why a management would bear huge cost of medical treatment for an employee who gets injured at his own residence on account of falling of a fan. In my opinion, this statement given by the management before the Labour Inspector really lets the cat out of the bag that actually the respondent/workman did in fact get injured at the factory premises and not at his home as is being contended on behalf of the appellant/management.

7. Counsel for the appellant also argued that the compensation claim be reduced however this argument is not based on any rationale because admittedly the compensation formula is legally prescribed, and the same has been accordingly applied by the Commissioner. The fact that the appellant/management incurred medical expenditure is not a ground to reduce the compensation because the workman is entitled both to the amounts incurred towards not only medical expenditure but also the compensation.

8. No other issues are pressed before me.

9. Accordingly, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

JANUARY 23, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. Ne