P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

Satyajuga Bennett Coleman & Co., Ltd. v. Bhupati Chatterjee A I R 1956 Cal. 604 held not applicable. Kh. Abdul Rashid for Appellant. Ata Ullah Sajjad, A. A. G., for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th December, 1961. This is an appeal against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, dated the 30th of September 1960, refusing to grant compensation to the appellant claimed by him on account of his having received an injury on the 24th of June 1957, while on duty on the Gas Welding Plant in the Irrigation Branch, Workshop Division, Mughalpura, Lahore. It was admitted by the respondent‑defendant that the appellant had received an injury in the manner alleged by him, as a result of which his eye‑sight of one of his eyes had suffered to the extent of 75 per cent.

2. The learned Senior Civil Judge, ultimately found that the petitioner would have been entitled to receive compensa tion only if there was a complete loss of one of his limbs or organs, as mentioned in Schedule I, Workmen's Compensation Act, and as he had only suffered to the extent of 75 per cent. of his eyesight of one of his eyes and as he in spite of the injury had been getting the same pay rather his pay had increased in the meantime, he was not entitled to get any compensation. The learned Senior Civil Judge has further found that if at any stage either with the present employer or some future employer the workman was not paid the same emoluments on account of injury, he will certainly become entitled to compensation and the lapse of time will not stand in his way as held in Satyajuga Bennett Coleman & Co., Ltd., v. Bhupati Chatterjee (A I R 1956 Cal. 604). As there has been no loss of earning capacity the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation. This finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge, is misconceived. This authority has no application to the facts of this case as that decided a point of limitation only. Partial disablement has been defined in section 2 (1) (g) which is as follows: ‑ "Partial disablement" means, where the disablement is of a temporary nature, such disablement as reduces the earning capacity of a workman in any employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident resulting in the disable ment, and, where, the disablement is of a permanent nature, such disablement as reduces his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at that time". From this definition, it is clear that the injury suffered by the appellant is 'partial disablement' of a permanent nature. It requires no argument to hold that such a disablement certainly reduces his earning capacity in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time of the accident. Supposing the appellant leaves the employment of the respondent or the respondent turns him out for one reason or the other, it is clear that his chances of earning the same wages shall be reduced because of his having lost 75 percent of the eyesight of one of his eyes. Section 4 lays down the amount of compensation which a person is entitled to get in case of an injury. It has been provided in section 4 (1) (c) that where permanent partial disablement results from the injury (i) in the case of an injury specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is specified therein as being the percentage of the loss of earning capacity caused by that injury, and (ii) in the case of an injury not specified in Schedule I, such percentage of the compensation payable in the case of permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity permanently caused by the injury. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant is entitled to get compensation in accordance with section 4 (c) (ii) and as it has been established from the medical evidence that he has a permanent partial disable ment of the nature which is not specified in Schedule I, he will be entitled to get the percentage of the compensation payable In the case permanent total disablement as is proportionate to the loss of earning capacity permanently caused by the injury. In case, the appellant had lost his one eye completely, he would have received 30 per cent. of the amount provided in Schedule IV, but he has not lost his eye completely, but 75 per cent. eyesight of one of his eyes, he will entitle to get 75 per cent. of 30 per cent of the amount payable to such an employee under Schedule IV. The right to compensation is provided by the Act. The Schedule merely prescribes the scale of compensation. It seems to me that the injury for which the statute gives compensation is not the loss of physical power but the loss or diminution of the capacity to earn wages in the employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident or an employment in which he could have got engaged at that time. By the loss of 75 per cent. of his eyesight of one his eyes he is heavily handicapped in seeking employment and this disadvantage has resulted from an accident. His pay at the time of the accident was between Rs. 70 to Rs.

80. If he had lost his one eye completely, he would have received 30 per cent of Rs. 4,480, but now as he has lost 75 per cent. of his eyesight of one of his eyes, he would be entitled to receive 22J per cent of Rs. 4,480 which comes to Rs. 1,C

80. I would, therefore, order that the appellant shall be paid by the defendant‑respondent Rs. 1,080 with costs throughout. His appeal is thus accepted. K. B. A. Appeal accepted.