$~18 * % + FAO2232011 SATISH SAW MILL IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:
11. h November, 2016 Through: Mr. Manish Malhotra, Advocate ........ Petitioner
Versus SHAMBHU MAHTO Through: Mr. Triloki Pandit, Advocate ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL) The appellant has challenged the order dated 17th February, 1. 2011, whereby the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation awarded compensation of Rs.2,03,980/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to respondent No.1.
2. On 24th May, 2000 at about 07:00 p.m., respondent No.1’s left hand was stuck in a saw machine which resulted in 71% permanent disability to the left hand of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 filed an the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation. The petitioner contested the claim of respondent No.1 on the 3. ground that respondent No.1 was employed as labour-cum-rickshaw puller and he had worked at the saw machine against the express instructions of the petitioner not to work there. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation held that the 4. accident arose out of and in the course of employment of respondent compensation before application for FAO2232011 Page 1 of 1 No.1 under the petitioner. The Commissioner held the permanent impairment of respondent No.1 with respect to left upper limb to be 71% as per the certificate issued by All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The Commissioner determined the compensation of Rs.2,03,980/- payable to respondent No.1.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing of the appeal that the accident did not occur in the course of employment as respondent No.1 was a rickshaw puller and was not authorised to work on the saw machine. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant does not pass the test of judicial belief under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement made by a witness has to pass the test of judicial belief. Reference may be made to the principles relating to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act in Ved Prakash Kharbanda v. Vimal Bindal, 198 (2013) DLT555 is not believable that an employee would work on a hazardous machine against the instructions of the employer.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the compensation awarded to respondent No.1 is on a higher side. It is submitted that the permanent disability of respondent No.1 be reduced from 71% to 30%. Respondent No.1 is present in Court and his condition has been 7. the permanent disability of seen. respondent No.1 has been rightly taken by the Commissioner as 71%. There is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.
8. 9. The appellant has deposited the principal award amount with the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation out of which 50% has been released to respondent No.1 in terms of order dated 04th May, is satisfied that It This Court FAO2232011 Page 2 of 2 The petitioner shall deposit is lying with the Commissioner, 2011 and the balance amount Employee’s Compensation. The Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation is directed to release the balance awarded amount to respondent No.1 by transferring the same to his savings bank account by instructing their bank to transfer the said amount to the bank account of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 shall furnish the particulars of his savings bank account to Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation.
10. the balance amount with the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation within a period of four weeks from today. The amount already deposited by the appellant shall be first adjusted against the interest as on the date of deposit and then towards the principal. the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation shall disburse the same to respondent No.1 by directing the concerned bank to keep the said amount in 5 FDRs of equal amount for the periods 6 months, 1 year, 1½ years, 2 years and 2½ years.
11. be credited to his savings bank accounts.
12. At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be credited in the savings bank account of respondent No.1.
13. All the original FDRs shall be retained by bank. However, the photocopies of the same shall be provided to respondent No.1. issued 14. No claimant/respondent No.1 without permission of this Court.
15. No loan or advance or pre-mature discharge shall be permitted without the permission of this Court. The monthly interest on the FDRs of the respondent No.1 shall On the deposit being made, cheque book the or debit card be to FAO2232011 Page 3 of 3 shall approach the Commissioner, 16. Respondent No.1 Employee’s Compensation bank for completing the formalities for the disbursement of the award amount in terms of this order.
17. Respondent No.1 is at liberty to approach this Court for release of further amount in case of any financial exigency.
18. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsels for the parties under signatures of the Court Master. NOVEMBER11 2016 rsk J.R. MIDHA, J.
FAO2232011 Page 4 of 4