Skip to content


Komal Das Baghel Vs. Maqsood Khan @ Pappu Seth and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1(1985)ACC46
AppellantKomal Das Baghel
RespondentMaqsood Khan @ Pappu Seth and anr.
Excerpt:
- madhya pradesh nagar tatha gram nivesh adhiniyam (23 of 1973)section 50(4) proviso (as inserted by act of 2004): [dipak misra, krishna kumar lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] preparation of town development scheme proviso prescribing time limit held, object of amendment is to remove hardship caused to citizens and to provide time limit to consider objections and suggestion and to provide a deeming clause so that the authority would act in quite promptitude. proviso unequivocal, categorical and unambiguous and does not permit any other kind of construction but a singular one. section 50 (4) proviso (as inserted by act of 2004): [dipak misra, krishn kumar lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] preparation of town development scheme held, proviso is not retrospective. scheme already finalised will..........learned counsel for the applicant, on the question of admission.2. the first grievance of the learned counsel is that the commissioner his neither awarded any penalty or interest on the amount of compensation determined by him. he submits that when some compensation has been awarded, penalty and interest should also be awarded. this does not appear to be correct. it is in the discretion of the commission to awarded penalty or interest while awarding the compensation. section 30 of the workmen's compensation act does not contemplate an appeal against orders refusing to award interest or penalty. section 30(1)(aa) provides for an appeal against an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4a. in this view of the matter, the appeal on this question would not be maintainable.3......
Judgment:

Gulab Gupta, J.

1. Heard Shri R.R. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the applicant, on the question of admission.

2. The first grievance of the learned Counsel is that the Commissioner his neither awarded any penalty or interest on the amount of compensation determined by him. He submits that when some compensation has been awarded, penalty and interest should also be awarded. This does not appear to be correct. It is in the discretion of the commission to awarded penalty or interest while awarding the compensation. Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act does not contemplate an appeal against orders refusing to award interest or penalty. Section 30(1)(aa) provides for an appeal against an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A. In this view of the matter, the appeal on this question would not be maintainable.

3. The learned Counsel's next grievance is about ignoring evidence on the wages which the workman was earning. He submits that it has come on record that besides Rs. 10/- per day as wages, the workman was being paid Rs. 5/- as Khuraki. This, according to the learned Counsel, should be taken into consideration. I do not agree. In para 3 of his application, the workman himself had claimed the monthly wages of Rs. 350/- only. This amount has been accepted by the Commissioner. The applicant would not be entitled to improve upon his case or make a new case simply because some evidence regarding Khuraki has on record. This evidence has on record. This evidence has reightly been ignored. Apart from it, 1 doubt if Khuraki, which is payment of diet money and is paid if the workman is required to work, can be added as wages for determining compensation to an injured workman. However, this need not be decided finally in view of the pleadings of the applicant himself.

4. The last grievance of the learned Counsel is that the applicant, because of amputation of his hand, has become wholly unfit for employment and, hence, compensation should have been awarded at the rate of 100% loss of his earning capacity. The argument is an argument of hardship had deserves all our sympathy. However, in view of the admitted position that the injury suffered by the workman is a scheduled injury for which compensation to the extent of 70% is provided, the commissioner had no jurisdiction to go beyond it, and award compensation as claimed by the learned Counsel. The workman, has all our sympathies, but sympathy alone is not able to give him any further relief.

5. The appeal is dismissed summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //