9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (12) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant on July 6, 1968, when he fell down, and suffered injuries resulting in the amputation of his left arm from the elbow. He served a notice on the appellant dated August 11, 1968 demanding payment of compensation as his regular employee. The appellant sent a reply dated August 21, 1968 stating that the respondent was a casual contractor, and that the accident had taken place solely because of his own negligence. The respondent then made a personal approach fur obtaining the compensation, but to no avail. He therefore made an application to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, respondent No. 2, Mating that he was a regular employee of the appellant, his wages were ₹ 120/- per mensem. He had suffered the injury in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cent, together with interest at 6 per cent per annum, making a total of ₹ 15,092/-. 3. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa, but it was dismissed summarily on October 10, 1969. He has therefore come up in appeal to this Court by Special leave. 4. It has not been disputed before us that the injury in question was caused to the respondent by an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the injury resulted in amputation of his left arm at the elbow It has however been argued that the injury did not result in permanent total disablement of the respondent, and that the Commissioner committed a gross error of law in taki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to assail it on any ground and it does not require to be corrected in this appeal. There is also no justification for the other argument which has been advanced with reference to item 3 of Part II of Schedule I, because it was not the appellant's case before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm was from 8" from tip of acromion to less than 41/2" below the tip of olecranon. A new case cannot therefore be allowed to be set up on facts which have not been admitted or established. 6. It has next been argued that the Commissioner committed a serious error of law in imposing a penalty on the appellant under Section 4A(3) of the Act as the compensation had not fallen due until it was 'settled' by the Commissioner und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus liable to pay compensation as soon as the aforesaid personal injury was caused to the appellant, and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary. 8. It was the duty of the appellant, under Section 4A(1) of the Act, to pay the compensation at the rate provided by Section 4 as soon as the personal injury was caused to the respondent. He failed to do so. What is worse, he did not even make a provisional payment under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 for, as has been stated, he went to the extent of taking the false pleas that the respondent was a casual contractor and that the accident occurred solely because of his negligence. Then there is the further fact that he paid no need to the respondent's personal approach for ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
