JUDGMENT
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. The appellant had filed application No. 12 of 1997 under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the learned Commissioner for workmen’s Compensation for U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commissioner’) for compensation which he claimed as a result of the injury which he received in the accident.
2. The appellant was a driver of a maruti van owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 2. This fact is not in dispute. In the accident, the appellant sustained an injury as a result of which his left leg had to be amputated. He had claimed compensation of Rs. 2 lacs.
3. The learned Commissioner, partly allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,34,490/- to the appellant along with 12% interest. The learned Commission while not agreeing with the contention that the pay of the appellant was Rs. 2,000/- per month, held that it could be assessed at Rs. 1,800/- per month. He assumed the disability was 57%.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Commissioner has erred in fixing the disability to the extent of 57% only. According to him, the appellant was a driver of the van which met with an accident and because of the amputation of his left leg, he is not able to perform his duties and, therefore, the disablement is held to be 100%.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata and Anr., reported in 1976 A.C.J. 141. In that case a carpenter fell down while he was working in the course of employment and sustained injuries and as a result of which his left arm was amputated. He had become unfit for the work as a carpenter. The apex Court held in that case that disablement was total and not partial as the work of carpentry could not be done by one hand only. The same principle, according to learned counsel for the appellant, should apply to the present case also.
The case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo (supra) was also under the Act. The principle laid down in the said judgment is very clear.
It is not shown as to how the said principle cannot be applicable to the present case.
7. Therefore, I find it proper to hold that the disability of the appellant is 100%. The pay of the appellant is held to be Rs. 1,800/- per month and there is no dispute regarding this amount. The learned Commission held that the age of the appellant was 24 years. The amount to be considered according to Section 4 of the Act shall come to Rs. 1,080/- per month. Multiplying the said amount by 218.47 as per Schedule IV of the Act, the amount comes to Rs. 2,35,947.60 because the appellant is held to be 24 years of age.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has also cited before me the case of National Insurance Co. Limited v. R. Vishnu and Anr., 1992 A.C.J. 590 (Karnataka) wherein it has been held that compensation higher than claimed can be awarded if the claimant is entitled to it and application under the Act cannot be treated as a plaint. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Smt. Swaran Kaur and Anr. v. Sardari Lal Kapur and Ors., (1994-2)107 P.L.R. 436. It has been held therein that the amount claimed less than due would not debar the Commissioner from awarding compensation to which the appellant is legitimately entitled to it. Both the above cases are regarding compensation under the Act. No law to the contrary has been shown to me, in view of the above reasons, the appellant shall be entitled to the above amount.
9. As a result, this appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to Rs. 1,01,457.60 in addition to the amount already awarded by the learned Commissioner. The interest shall be at the rate of 12% from 20.12.1996 till its realisation. The learned Commissioner is directed to invest 50% of the enhanced amount in the name of the appellant for a period of 7 years in any nationalised bank situated in the town/village/city in which the appellant resides. 50% of the interest on the enhanced amount shall be invested for five years in the above manner. The bank shall not pay the principal amounts to the appellant without the orders of the learned Commissioner till the respective investment periods are over but shall pay the interest to him as and when it falls due.