JUDGMENT
Govardhan, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madurai dated 14.7.86 granting compensation of Rs. 6,720/- to the applicant and directing the first opposite party to pay the same.
2. The case of the applicant is as follows: The applicant was a workman under the Opposite Party No. 2 in his Tractor No. TNU 7806. On 30.4.1983 at about 4.30 p.m. when he was returning to Devadanapatti, near No. 10, Toddy Shop in Devadanapatti, Madurai Road, the Tractor toppled down in the adjacent channel. The applicant was caught below the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries. The monthly wages of the applicant was Rs. 600/-. The applicant is about 15 years of age. The tractor has been insured with the Opposite Party No. 1. The applicant is entitled to a lump sum payment of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence the application.
3. The first Opposite Party viz., the Insurance Company filed a counter stating briefly as follows: The applicant has to prove that he was earning Rs. 300/- per mensum as wages and Rs. 15/- per day as batta. It is not admitted that the tractor toppled down while the workmen was returning to Devadanapatti. The accident could have occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the applicant. The first Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation.
4. The second Opposite Party in his statement has stated as follows: The applicant while in service under the second Opposite Party was earning Rs. 300/- per month as salary and Rs. 15/- as daily batta and in all he was getting Rs. 600/- per month. If the compensation is fixed and awarded, it will have to be paid by the first Opposite Party. The accident had occurred due to the negligence of the applicant. The second Opposite Party is an unnecessary party and the application is liable to be dismissed.
5. On the above pleadings, the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madurai held on enquiry and awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,720/- to the applicant and directed the first Opposite Party to pay the same.
6. The appeal has been preferred by the applicant as he was not satisfied with the quantum.
7. The point for consideration is: Whether the applicant is entitled to more than the compensation awarded in the lower Court?
8. The Point: The case of the applicant and the second Opposite Party that the applicant was employed under the second Opposite Party and during the course of his employment, he met with an accident and sustained injuries has been accepted the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. There is no appeal against the said finding of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and therefore it has become final. The applicant has filed this appeal as he was not satisfied with the quantum awarded. The learned Counsel for the appellant would argue that the injuries sustained by the applicant does not fall under Schedule I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and therefore while awarding compensation, Section 4 Explanation 2(c) of the Act has to be invoked and if the quantum is calculated fixing the salary at Rs. 360/- as was done by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, the amount payable will be more than Rs. 18,000/- and the payment of Rs. 6,720/- is very low and it must be increased. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would on the other hand argue that the burden of proof that he is entitled to more compensation is on the applicant and that the injuries sustained by the Workman are not the injuries which have been described in Schedule I of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and that Schedule IV of the Act is not dehors of Schedule I and therefore it cannot be considered separately to pay a higher compensation to the appellant.
9. The injuries sustained by the workmen are: Burns in the face due to the hot oil poured out from the engine; fracture in the shoulder; abrasions all over the body and injury to the eyebrows. Schedule I and II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act gives a list of injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement and permanent partial disablement. The Act also provides the percentage of loss of earning capacity for the injuries described in those two Schedules. The injuries sustained by the Workmen do not come under any of these two Schedules. When the injuries sustained by the Workman do not come under the injuries described in Schedules I and II for the purpose of working out the lump sum equivalent to compensation, one has to look into Schedule IV only. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that Schedule IV is not de hors of Schedule I and therefore it cannot be considered separately is not convincing and acceptable. When we consider the loss of earning capacity of the Workman at 25% as decided by the commissioner for Workman’s Compensation and calculate the compensation payable to the applicant taking into account his age as 24 and the factor in Schedule IV being 218.47, the compensation payable to the workmen works out to Rs. 28,420/-. The applicant has asked for Rs. 25,000/- only. Therefore, I am of opinion that the applicant is entitled to claim the said has amount from the first respondent who insured the vehicle.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madurai and the applicant-appellant is awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand only) as compensation. No costs.